On 12/12/23 19:25, Arthur A. Gleckler wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 1:02 PM Maxim Cournoyer
> <xxxxxx@gmail.com <mailto:xxxxxx@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     I believe 2b could be reworded as:
>
>         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. If the file uses a
>         custom license, the SPDX LicenseRef strategy should be employed
>         [0]. 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.
>
>         [0] https://reuse.software/faq/#custom-license
>     <https://reuse.software/faq/#custom-license>
>
>
> Ah, right.  Okay, I've started with your suggestion and produced this:
>
>     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. If the file uses
>     a custom license, the SPDX LicenseRef
>     <https://reuse.software/faq/#custom-license> strategy should be
>     employed. 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.
>
> But I still need to address John's reply about derived works.

With this revised version of 2b, everything seems acceptable to me. On
the derived works point, I think the main principle is that the SPDX
metadata must be *accurate*, meaning that, if there are additional
licenses that are relevant for a derived work, the metadata must reflect
that reality.

Philip