| 1 |
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 3:51 PM Sarah White <kuzetsa@××××××××××.ovh> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 11/23/18 3:42 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 3:23 PM Sarah White <kuzetsa@××××××××××.ovh> wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> |
| 6 |
> >> On 11/23/18 2:46 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 7 |
> >>> Nobody is suggesting that multiple copyright owners shouldn't be |
| 8 |
> >>> allowed. Merely that multiple copyright owners shouldn't be named in |
| 9 |
> >>> the copyright notice. |
| 10 |
> >> |
| 11 |
> >> The interest in removing or discouraging a more verbose, |
| 12 |
> >> explicit copyright notice would suggest the only legitimate |
| 13 |
> >> interest should be assumed to be in "gentoo authors", and |
| 14 |
> >> for no other entity(s) or person(s) need have any stake |
| 15 |
> >> in having a well-structured copyright notice (any format) |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > I'm not sure what "well-structured" means. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> SPDX is well-structured, and was previously given |
| 20 |
> as an example (I believe it was in this thread) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Great, so stick this in your git commit: |
| 23 |
SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
That isn't a copyright notice anyway, so I see it as orthogonal to the |
| 26 |
issue of notice. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Rich |
Archives