On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 09:14:01AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 04:13:57PM +0300, Antony Pavlov wrote: > > At the moment barebox uses SPDX identifiers in very few files. > > > > Can we adopt Linux kernel licensing rules for barebox? > > (https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/process/license-rules.rst) > > I really like the idea of using SPDX, but I never looked into what is > necessary to use it. Adopt this license-rules file, change the headers > in the files and be done with it? "Necessary" depends. Having SPDX-License-Identifier tags in source files is usually enough for people who know what SPDX is, but for all the other people and to allow automated license compliance checks with tools, we also need the rest what the kernel documentation describes. I think forking that doc would be okay. I stumbled into that problem already when I tried to package barebox for Debian [1], the problem here is that the files in the barebox source tree are historically grown and have different styles of headers and other quirks in the formatting, which make it rather impossible to throw it into tools to find out copyright holders. SPDX seems the way to go for machine-readable license annotations, and many projects already use it. [1]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=900958 - Roland -- Roland Hieber | r.hieber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx | Pengutronix e.K. | https://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim | Phone: +49-5121-206917-5086 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
