public inbox for glibc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "richard.purdie at linuxfoundation dot org" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org> To: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug libc/28007] Add SPDX license identifiers Date: Sat, 28 May 2022 12:29:37 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-28007-131-2AD0RyTNpV@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-28007-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28007 richard.purdie at linuxfoundation dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |richard.purdie@linuxfoundat | |ion.org --- Comment #4 from richard.purdie at linuxfoundation dot org --- I would love to see this as it would significantly improve license identifier coverage of our code. Yocto Project uses the debug symbol/file information to work out which files contribute to a given binary and if those have SPDX identifiers, we can give a reasonable indication of the license for the binary. Is this something you'd accept incremental work on over time? Resolving the files which aren't the "standard" license would be particularly beneficial but wider coverage would be great too. Have you given thought to what format would you want these changes in? In some projects (including our own Bitbake/OpenEmbedded-Core) we ended up replacing the license boilerplate with the SPDX-License-Identifier as it simplified and made things really clear. In some projects they just add the identifier and leave the existing license declaration. I'm not sure which glibc would prefer? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-28 12:29 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-06-22 17:42 [Bug libc/28007] New: " dje at sourceware dot org 2021-06-25 11:53 ` [Bug libc/28007] " carlos at redhat dot com 2022-05-25 19:12 ` Martin.Jansa at gmail dot com 2022-05-25 20:20 ` carlos at redhat dot com 2022-05-28 12:29 ` richard.purdie at linuxfoundation dot org [this message] 2022-05-30 14:21 ` carlos at redhat dot com 2022-05-30 15:04 ` fweimer at redhat dot com 2022-05-30 15:12 ` dje at sourceware dot org 2022-05-30 15:22 ` richard.purdie at linuxfoundation dot org 2022-05-30 15:25 ` richard.purdie at linuxfoundation dot org 2022-05-30 15:25 ` fweimer at redhat dot com 2022-05-30 15:32 ` fweimer at redhat dot com 2022-05-30 16:24 ` richard.purdie at linuxfoundation dot org 2022-05-30 17:12 ` carlos at redhat dot com 2022-05-30 17:21 ` carlos at redhat dot com 2022-05-31 15:49 ` rwmacleod at gmail dot com
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-28007-131-2AD0RyTNpV@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org \ --cc=glibc-bugs@sourceware.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).