Hi Arthur,

"Arthur A. Gleckler" <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> writes:

> Let's try to bring this discussion to a productive conclusion.  I've just
> re-read the entire thread carefully, trying to come up with a single
> checklist that Maxim can use for pull requests for existing SRFIs, and that
> I can use for future SRFIs.  I've merged the checklists proposed by John,
> Maxim, and Philip, have tried to resolve any conflicts, and have done some
> wordsmithing.  Any mistakes are my own.  Here's what I've come up with:

Thank you for taking the time to do this!

>    1.
>
>    The SRFI text MUST include the text of the MIT/Expat license. (This was
>    already a requirement.)
>    2.
>
>    All the source and data files to be included in the repo MUST use a
>    permissive (non-copyleft) free software license. It SHOULD be the same
>    MIT/Expat license as the SRFI document, but the editors MAY grant an
>    exception for pre-existing code.
>
>    a) Any license notice already present in a file MUST be retained as is.
>
>    b) If the format of a file supports comments, and the file is at least
>    fifteen lines long, it MUST contain a copyright notice. It must also
>    contain the corresponding SPDX metadata, provided that there exists
>    appropriate metadata for that license. If a file is a derivative work, it
>    may also include the license of the original work, or a reference to it, if
>    that is required by the license of the original work. *There should be
>    no SPDX metadata for such a license.*
>
>    c) If the format of a file does not support comments, nothing should be
>    added to the file. Instead, the standard external SPDX metadata should be
>    used.
>    3.
>
>    The reuse lint command SHOULD pass, i.e. the SRFI SHOULD be
>    REUSE-compliant. This means that every source file SHOULD contain a
>    SPDX-License-Identifier tag with the license, and that a LICENSES/
>    directory SHOULD contain the referenced license's text.
>
> I have two questions:
>
>    1. John, why did you include the underlined text?
>    2. Is this checklist agreeable?  Note that I'm not asking whether it's
>    perfect.

It's agreeable to me, with the exception of the emphasized text from 2b,
which should be dropped as *all* files require a SPDX-License-Identifier
for 'reuse lint' to pass in 3.

That's a nice compilation that seems easily actionable, well done!

--
Maxim