Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Maxim Cournoyer (06 Dec 2023 22:46 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Arthur A. Gleckler (06 Dec 2023 23:06 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe (07 Dec 2023 18:31 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Arthur A. Gleckler (07 Dec 2023 19:00 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Arthur A. Gleckler (07 Dec 2023 20:12 UTC)
Re: First batch of SPDX annotated SRFIs examples Maxim Cournoyer (09 Dec 2023 03:28 UTC)
Re: First batch of SPDX annotated SRFIs examples Lassi Kortela (09 Dec 2023 16:18 UTC)
Re: First batch of SPDX annotated SRFIs examples Maxim Cournoyer (09 Dec 2023 23:06 UTC)
Re: First batch of SPDX annotated SRFIs examples Lassi Kortela (10 Dec 2023 12:45 UTC)
Re: First batch of SPDX annotated SRFIs examples John Cowan (10 Dec 2023 13:15 UTC)
Re: First batch of SPDX annotated SRFIs examples Maxim Cournoyer (10 Dec 2023 16:03 UTC)
Re: First batch of SPDX annotated SRFIs examples Maxim Cournoyer (10 Dec 2023 15:59 UTC)
Re: First batch of SPDX annotated SRFIs examples Lassi Kortela (10 Dec 2023 16:32 UTC)
Re: First batch of SPDX annotated SRFIs examples Maxim Cournoyer (12 Feb 2024 19:48 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (08 Dec 2023 16:21 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Arthur A. Gleckler (08 Dec 2023 23:37 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Arthur A. Gleckler (09 Dec 2023 00:01 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Arthur A. Gleckler (09 Dec 2023 00:11 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Arthur A. Gleckler (08 Dec 2023 23:31 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Arthur A. Gleckler (08 Dec 2023 23:35 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (09 Dec 2023 08:06 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (09 Dec 2023 14:19 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (09 Dec 2023 16:08 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (09 Dec 2023 16:02 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Arthur A. Gleckler (10 Dec 2023 02:21 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (09 Dec 2023 17:28 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Arthur A. Gleckler (10 Dec 2023 02:30 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Arthur A. Gleckler (12 Dec 2023 00:15 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Arthur A. Gleckler (12 Dec 2023 18:44 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Arthur A. Gleckler (13 Dec 2023 00:26 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Arthur A. Gleckler (18 Dec 2023 19:41 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Arthur A. Gleckler (18 Dec 2023 23:03 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Arthur A. Gleckler (13 Dec 2023 00:41 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (12 Dec 2023 07:01 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Arthur A. Gleckler (13 Dec 2023 00:24 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Daphne Preston-Kendal (09 Dec 2023 10:26 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (09 Dec 2023 17:35 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Daphne Preston-Kendal (09 Dec 2023 21:09 UTC)
Re: Proposal to use SPDX for SRFI license/copyright declarations Arthur A. Gleckler (10 Dec 2023 02:18 UTC)

Re: First batch of SPDX annotated SRFIs examples Maxim Cournoyer 10 Dec 2023 15:59 UTC

Hi Lassi,

Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io> writes:

>> I think I prefer the SPDX comments inside the .gitgnore file though,
>> even if just for uniformity with the rest.
>
> I've expressed my opinion. The rest of you can vote on it.
>
>>> Comments in .html files should probably go below the <html> tag. See
>>> e.g.https://stackoverflow.com/questions/941100/can-comments-appear-before-the-doctype-declaration
>
> Does the reuse tool place HTML comments before the <html> tag? That
> should probably be fixed in the tool.

It should, if you are confident this is a problem.

>>> for more natural looking notices. E.g.
>>>
>>> # Copyright 2015 Arthur A. Gleckler<xxxxxx@speechcode.com>
>>> # SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
>
>> I left the reuse tool take care of producing these (using something like
>> "reuse annotate -lMIT -y2015 -c'Arthur A. Gleckler<xxxxxx@speechcode.com>' .gitignore")
>> When there are multiple copyright holders, they are grouped together
>> as
>> in:
>> # SPDX-FileCopyrightText: 2015 Some One <email1>
>> # SPDX-FileCopyrightText: 2018 Another One <email2>
>> #
>> # SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
>> I don't feel strongly about it; I prefer to stick to what the tool
>> produces as it makes my life easier.
>
> This works: reuse annotate example.scm --copyright "Some One"
> --license MIT --copyright-style string --merge-copyrights

I meant to say I find the output agreeable; having the copyright holders
bloc separated from the license identifier by a blank line makes both
easy to visually differentiate.

> It produces:
>
> ; Copyright 2023 Some One
> ;
> ; SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
>
> It uses ";" instead of the more sensible ";;" or ";;;".

That's a problem known upstream [0] for which I've sent a PR in [1].

[0]  https://github.com/fsfe/reuse-tool/issues/637
[1]  https://github.com/fsfe/reuse-tool/pull/874

> To get rid of the blank line, it seems we would have to use a custom
> template that has to be copied into each SRFI's repo. Unwieldy.

My opinion is that it's not worth the hassle.  It's a minor cosmetic
detail.

--
Thanks,
Maxim