[REUSE] Support / repurpose central LICENSE file

Fri Mar 6 15:55:44 UTC 2020

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 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 Carmen Bianca Bakker <carmenbianca at fsfe.org>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. März 2020 16:37:43
An: reuse at 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 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/20200306/6eb8cdc4/attachment-0001.htm>