[Starlingx-discuss] Using short form SPDX style license headers
    Jones, Bruce E 
    bruce.e.jones at intel.com
       
    Mon Aug  6 18:04:50 UTC 2018
    
    
  
No objection at all to using the SPDX license identifiers.  I thought we already were. :)
        brucej
-----Original Message-----
From: Saul Wold [mailto:sgw at linux.intel.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 10:38 AM
To: starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
Subject: [Starlingx-discuss] Using short form SPDX style license headers
Has the project got any firm direction on using the full license text vs the SPDX "short identifiers" [0] for license headers?
I am not proposing we change things wholesale, I am just looking to establish a direction moving forward.  Any new files written would include the short identifier [1]. Any modified files could switch to SPDX identifiers when edited.  At some point we could do a mass replacement, but not recommending that now.
Many OpenSource projects are starting to use the one-line SPDX license identifier, including the Linux kernel project [2].
Example instead of including about 15 lines of Apache 2.0 License, the single line would be used:
SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0
Thoughts, flames?
Sau!
[0] https://spdx.org
[1] https://spdx.org/licenses
[2]
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/license-rules.rst
_______________________________________________
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
Starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
    
    
More information about the Starlingx-discuss
mailing list