Jonas,
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017, Jonas Oberg wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> I do appreciate your work on this, it's a welcome addition!
>
> > +SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 // GPLv2 only
> > +SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ // GPLv2 or later
>
> I am concerned about this though, as the SPDX-License-Identifier is well
> known to refer to the license of the document in which it appears, and
> it would be beneficial to avoid a situation where a tool reading this
> make the assumption the license text itself it under a particular
> license. Essentially, let's avoid overloading if we can.
Makes sense
> >From my reading, there are two intentions with the above reading:
>
> 1) To give usage guidelines and signal that for any source file, adding
> this exact line would be a valid license identifier, and
> 2) To make the license identifiers computer understandable such that
> tools can be updated to validate whether source code includes a
> license identifier which corresponds to one of the licenses in
> LICENSES/
>
> I'd propose to not try to do both at the same time and would propose
> a 'Valid-License-Identifier' tag to meet your second criteria, and
> a 'Usage-Guidance' tag to meet your first one. The header would then
> be:
>
> Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> Usage-Guidance:
> To use this license in source code, you can use either of the following tags
> and values:
> .
> SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 // For GPLv2 only
> SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ // For GPLv2 or any later version
I can live with that.
Thanks for looking over this!
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
