Re: [GNUnet-developers] spdx proposal

[Christian Grothoff]

On 1/12/19 6:43 PM, address@hidden wrote:
> We have a number of options here:
> 1. Do as pleroma does. cut down the license part of the header to the 
> necessary parts.
> 2. Add SPDX as an addition to our current header, no removal.
> 3. Look more closely into what Linux has done.
> 4. Ignore spdx.
> 
> I'm in favor of 2 and would also go for 1 if people found it reasonable.

(1) would conflict with GNU maintainer guide. Against.
(2) Is very reasonable.
(3) Nah. We can think for ourselves.
(4) If you want to put in the effort, I would not discourage that. The
goals of machine-readable licenses are reasonable. I've tried myself
(and failed...) to make LibreJS work for Taler's JS code...  So adding
SPDX headers is a good idea, albeit probably not critical.

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature