Prepare 3.2 version of specification #133
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Carmen Bianca BAKKER <[email protected]>
|
|
||
| ## Format of copyright notices | ||
| A Copyright Notice MUST start with a tag, word or symbol (collectively: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
At this point, we can be bold enough to make it stricter and deprecate all Copyright Notices that do not start with the appropriate SPDX tag.
Allowing for other formats was a temporary workaround that made sense to lessen the barrier for wider adoption, when REUSE was still new and we were inventing things that did not exist yet. But with SPDX File Tags (and SPDX Snippet Tags) now being a thing in an ISO standard, all we’re doing here is encouraging people to ignore part of the SPDX ISO standard.
Even within REUSE itself it causes inconsistency:
- dep5 requires a
Copyrighttag, and so do we - reuse.yaml I very much imagine cannot work without relying on a tag
- the in-line Snippets section explicitly says that SPDX Snippet Tags have to be used (makes sense, since the whole thing is covered within the SPDX spec now)
- it is only the per-file copyright notice where we still allow a more lax approach
Signed-off-by: Carmen Bianca BAKKER <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Carmen Bianca BAKKER <[email protected]>
carmenbianca
force-pushed
the
prep-3.2
branch
from
36c3e3c
to
86933c1
Compare
Signed-off-by: Carmen Bianca BAKKER <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Carmen Bianca BAKKER <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Carmen Bianca BAKKER <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Carmen Bianca BAKKER <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Carmen Bianca BAKKER <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Carmen Bianca BAKKER <[email protected]>
I removed some stuff that was already defined in the SPDX spec, and reworded things to be a little clearer. Signed-off-by: Carmen Bianca BAKKER <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Matija Šuklje <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Carmen Bianca BAKKER <[email protected]>
carmenbianca
force-pushed
the
prep-3.2
branch
from
8d19cf2
to
26018ff
Compare
|
Gave this another go. The big change is that I overhauled the snippet section. Some subtle changes besides. |
|
We should add a date to the spec. |
|
Let's fix the issue raised in fsfe/reuse-tool#868 (DONE) |
Signed-off-by: Carmen Bianca BAKKER <[email protected]>
spec.md
Outdated
| Additionally, you can associate Copyright and Licensing Information with | ||
| Snippets inside of files. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we refer to the separate section, or mention it somehow (like "see below" or so)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am deciding against this because everything in this section is documented in its subsections. This text is just a small preamble, and the relevant section here is almost immediately below the referenced text.
Signed-off-by: Carmen Bianca BAKKER <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Carmen Bianca BAKKER <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Carmen Bianca BAKKER <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Carmen Bianca BAKKER <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Carmen Bianca BAKKER <[email protected]>
|
I'm going to merge this following the 10 May coordination meeting. Please open new issues for things that aren't quite right. |
I'm creating a single PR for this because most changes were already pushed in separate PRs. This PR contains clean-ups and fixes before we can formally release 3.2.
Fixes fsfe/reuse-tool#868