[REUSE] Introduce folder.license file

Fri Mar 6 15:41:01 UTC 2020

Some thoughts here

You propse to have the file right beside the folder. I understand this due to the similarity to the mechanism for files, but I would rather prefer to have the file inside the folder. Why, because it makes the connection to the folder clearer, if the file is beside the folder it might be difficult to see the association because, e.g., dependending on the browser the files might be shown separately from the folders and the association for a human looking at the parent folder is difficult.

If it is entered into the folder, it might be favorable to use a naming scheme that make the folder license easily detectable, like choosing a name that typically ends up first in the list, e.g., using '_' as first character.

Will the license file allow to reflect multiple licenses, it could be that the copyright holder and even the licenses differ for the different files referenced? Or which mechanism would allow to make as few license references as possible but allowing the possibility of different information for different sets of files?

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 at 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 at lists.fsfe.org> im Auftrag von Max Mehl <max.mehl at fsfe.org>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. März 2020 12:35:08
An: reuse at lists.fsfe.org
Betreff: [REUSE] Introduce folder.license file

With the current specification it's possible to create an extra file
containing the copyright and licensing information for binary files or
those not supporting comment headers. So for instance, for the file
`cat.jpg`, you can create the text file `cat.jpg.license` which contains
the SPDX-License-Identifier and SPDX-FileCopyrightText (or the
traditional Copyright ©) lines.

That works well for single files, but how to deal with a directory
containing hundreds of such files, e.g. icons or JSON files? Currently,
you would either have to create a .license file for each of them, or
bulk-license this in the REUSE dep5 file [^1].

This is a bit clunky. Therefore we suggest to introduce the same
mechanism for folders that we already have for binary files:
folder.license

Example: the directory `img/` contains a lot of non-editable files. To
add copyright and licensing information for every single of these files,
one could create the text file `img.license` on the same level as the
directory itself. This file would then contain the required information.

Pros:
  - Easier way to bulk-license directories
  - Information is closer to the actual files and not far away in
    .reuse/dep5.
  - It's feels intuitive to support the same mechanism for directories
    as for files.

Cons:
  - Could be abused by lazy people who then would only create one
    .license file for a complex hierarchy, e.g. by doing that for the
    `src/` folder. This would conflict with REUSE's goal to have the
    information as close to the files as possible (ideally as comment
    header).
  - Potential "option overload", since this would be the fourth option
    to declary copyright and licensing information next to comment
    header, file.license, and dep5 file.

Options:
  - Soft-deprecate the dep5 file over time if we introduced the
    folder.license scheme if we consider dep5 to be used mainly for
    bulk-licensing directories. However, dep5 also supports wildcards
    like `*.png`.
  - Like the dep5 soft-deprecation above, but combined with the
    introduction of a better format. DEP5 has its limitations, has a
    different syntax in some places, and REUSE also overrides some parts
    of the DEP5 spec. So something like JSON or YAML could be more
    appropriate.

Please share your opinion on this suggestion in reply to this mail.
Thank you!

Best,
Max

[^1]: https://reuse.software/faq/#bulk-license

--
Max Mehl - Programme Manager - Free Software Foundation Europe
Contact and information: https://fsfe.org/about/mehl | @mxmehl
Become a supporter of software freedom:  https://fsfe.org/join
_______________________________________________
REUSE mailing list
REUSE at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/private/reuse/attachments/20200306/74ff7201/attachment.htm>