Stuck on an issue?
Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.
And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.
[Discussion] Drop SPDX-License-Identifier header?
See original GitHub issueI will like to discuss the drop of the SPDX-License-Identifier and the Copyritght holders headers in the Python code. The LICENSE file should cover the common case, and the copyright notice can be in the documentation, or in some more general place.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 2 years ago
- Comments:6 (5 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Can I use the SPDX License Identifier in place of the full text of ...
So no, just mentioning the SPDX license identifier is not enough to fulfill the requirements of this license. I recommend you put the...
Read more >Add “NONE” to the license expression syntax #49 - GitHub
I'd like both of them to be part of license expressions, but think we can discuss them individually. I should note that the...
Read more >SPDX identifiers in the kernel - LWN.net
It recently surfaced in the form of a huge patch set adding SPDX identifiers to over 12,000 kernel source files that did not...
Read more >IDs - Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX)
Use SPDX short-form identifiers to communicate FOSS license information ... parsing of license headers; Decrease confusion by using the SPDX License List.
Read more >add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license
The analysis to determine which SPDX License Identifier to be applied to a file ... already had some variant of a license header...
Read more >
Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start Free
Top Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
@aplanas Seems there are no objections, feel free to make this change.
I agree that pulling both into a single file would make sense and only have a separate license section for a file if it’s different. But I’m pretty sure we would never want to have multiple licenses as not only are there incompatibilities, but it would make life very difficult for packagers.
I’m in favor of this change, but wanted to give it a couple of days to make sure there weren’t any big objections from the community.