Closed Jayman2000 closed 2 years ago
I’m not in favour of introducing a definition of “To Use A Specific License” – this is a pretty common term, and loading it with a specific meaning could cause confusion or even distrust in the spec, IMHO.
Imagine trying to explain to someone whether they used a specific license or Used A Specific License is not the same thing.
I agree with your criticism. I just pushed a new version of this PR. Instead of saying what it means “To Use A Specific License”, it now says what it means for Copyright and Licensing Information to use a particular license.
I still don’t like this approach and prefer the #85 over this.
I still don’t like this approach and prefer the #85 over this.
I agree, it feels much more complex and easy to misunderstand which is the opposite of what we want to achieve with REUSE. However, thank you for the proposal @Jayman2000!
Before this change, the License File requirement applied to all files in a Project, but the Copyright and Licensing Information requirement applied to only some of the files in a Project. This change makes it so that:
Some files don't need to have either. This change also makes it so that if you have one, then you need have the other.
Fixes #84.
Compared to #85, this PR has tighter rules on excluded files but uses more complicated language.