Hi all,

My 2 cents, and a proposition.

I would rather disfavor option 1, simply because it does not solve the problems :)
- no indication of {in|out}bound licenses
- no clear SPDX identification of the license

I would intuitively favor option 2, because:
- today's LICENSE file contains a license text, and not an SPDX identifier.
  That's an inconsistency compared to other license identification in the REUSE specs.
- It addresses the {in|out}bound licenses problem nicely
- We can still support old-style LICENSE full text -> we don't have to fix people's minds.

Now, to circumvent the problem of re-purposing the LICENSE file,
 why not introduce a new file, like "LICENSE.reuse" ?
- we can still store the license text in the LICENSE file
- it is close enough to LICENSE so that it attracts people who
  are looking for compliance info
- it would ease the adoption of this standard by GitHub & co
- this new file could be generated automatically by the REUSE tools.
- it would take precedence over the LICENSE file (I suppose)

I would just modify the content of the file:
- to insert a link to REUSE specs
- make it more easily parsable (maybe see with the SPDX team to create
  new tags like SPDX-License-Identifier)

I would not want to mess with the README.md file, that is not made to be parsable,
 unless adding the SPDX stanza to identify the outbound license.
- not sure that updating README.md be will easier than a LICENSE.reuse
- one can add a pointer/link to the LICENSE file in the README.
- REUSE tools could also automatically insert relevant lines in the README
 like it does in source code files.

Nico


On 06/03/2020 16:55, Geyer-Blaumeiser Lars (IOC/PDL4) wrote:

Hello all,


I agree with Carmen on option 2. The reason to think about the LICENSE file is because it is common. Changing the smeantics on the file will not improve the situation, because people do not like the LICENSE file in root because it is such a nice thing, but because they are used to it and in the end the content of the file matters, so changing the content should not be an option.


When it comes to option 1 it is simply a convenience and it makes specifications much more likeable if they make themselves as convenient as possible. Perhaps it is a simple bugfix for GitHub but for the bugfix in the brains of users this is not as easy 😊. What makes the LICENSE file in the root folder convenient is the simple asosciation with the file is in the root so it applies to everything in that root folder. If it is in a sub folder, this is an additional mental step to associate the file with the brother and sister folders of its parent, so it "feels" better. I understand that more complext situations are better handled in its own box aka. folder, but for easy cases it helps to grasp the situation faster.


In the end the place only matters for human readers, because tools can easily adapt and from the way, license and copyright scanners work, they simply detect the license texts, whereever they are hidden in the folder structure, again it is then the human being who has to assess the information retrieved by the scanner who has to make the associations.


Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards

Dr. Lars Geyer-Blaumeiser

Project Delivery - Open Source Services (IOC/PDL4)
Bosch.IO GmbH | Stuttgarter Straße 130 | 71332 Waiblingen | GERMANY | www.bosch.io
Mobil +49 172 4815079 | lars.geyer-blaumeiser@bosch.io

Sitz: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg; HRB 148411 B
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Dr.-Ing. Thorsten Lücke; Geschäftsführung: Dr. Stefan Ferber, Dr. Aleksandar Mitrovic, Yvonne Reckling


Von: REUSE <reuse-bounces@lists.fsfe.org> im Auftrag von Carmen Bianca Bakker <carmenbianca@fsfe.org>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. März 2020 16:37:43
An: reuse@lists.fsfe.org
Betreff: Re: [REUSE] Support / repurpose central LICENSE file
 
Hi all,

In general I disfavour option 2 (using LICENSE to summarise the
licensing situation). This should already happen in the README of a
project, so it is a duplicated effort. Moreover, keeping the summary
up-to-date can be challenging. At least if it's in the README, you
encounter the summary every now and then, and can file a bug report if
it's out-of-date. The chances that you would randomly read LICENSE are
nil.

It has a few more issues:

- The reason that a lot of people want to keep the LICENSE file is
because GitHub auto-detects the file. A summary cannot be auto-
detected.

  + Last I heard, this is still a known issue at GitHub. GitHub wants
to support the detection of multi-licensed projects at some point.

- A lot of tools (and humans) might assume that the license text is in
LICENSE, and neglect to verify. That is obviously not what we want.

- REUSE is really cool because it introduces a machine-readable way of
doing copyright and licensing. I cannot envision an easy way in which
to make this suggested LICENSE summary machine-readable.

---

I feel more ambivalent about option 1. I'm erring towards no because it
would complicate the specification for no good reason. Having a
directory covers all cases. Having a LICENSE file adds a ton of
complications as listed in the cons.

I know two reasons to do it anyway, but I don't find them very
convincing:

1. GitHub (and/or other tools) don't recognise the LICENSES/ directory.

2. Having a single LICENSE file is easier/nicer/whatever.

Point 1 requires a simple bugfix.

Point 2 is tabs-vs-spaces. I am devoutly convinced that there is a
correct answer to the tabs-vs-spaces debate (hint: it's spaces), but
the rational part of my brain says that it just doesn't matter.

The spec is stronger when it suggests one---and only one---obvious way
to do it.

---

So I wouldn't change anything in this department. Of course, if we
don't change anything, it'll never really be a closed debate.

Ah well. 🙆

Yours with kindness,
Carmen


_______________________________________________
REUSE mailing list
REUSE@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/reuse

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
 
_______________________________________________
REUSE mailing list
REUSE@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/reuse

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct


-- 

Nicolas Toussaint
OBS - Orange Business Services - Lyon, France
Tel: +33 608 763 559