Closed sschuberth closed 3 months ago
Thanks for reporting.
For now you could add a license expression to the notice file. I wouldn't go the dep5 route.
For the future I think we should adjust reuse-tool to not check for license information in the notice file, as is it is already legal metadata. We wouldn't check the copyright and license of the dep5 file either. Let's check what others think of this.
Some relevant documentation on notice files https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
Another simple solution would be to allow .reuse/dep5
entries that just add a license, but no copyright. That would allow to nicely just complements what's not already in the file. Unfortunately, at least to me the dep5 spec is not clear about whether the Copyright:
field is mandatory to have or not, but I guess it's not.
@sschuberth #779 will address this need.
Closing as duplicate. Thanks for the issue. It validates that the many many hours of work put into #863 answer a valid real-world problem.
Some files, like a flavor of
NOTICE
files, deliberately only contain copyright statements, likeNow,
reuse lint
flags this file asBut if I add the following to
.reuse/dep5
:then
reuse lint
complains withSo I tried to omit the
Copyright:
line from the.reuse/dep5
entry, but then I getHow am I supposed to solve this without getting any warnings / errors and without suppressing anything when running
reuse lint
?