[Starlingx-discuss] Using short form SPDX style license headers

[Jones, Bruce E]

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