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 At least if it's in the README, you encounter the summary every now and then, and can file a bug report if it's out-of-date.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