Re: Meta-question on GPL compliance of this activity

[John Sullivan <johns@fsf.org>]

J Lovejoy <opensource@jilayne.com> writes:

> Richard, 
>
> As you raised this concern and yet I’m noticing you continue to review
> the patches and sign off, am I correct to assume that you don’t think
> this is a big concern?
>

I was late to subscribe and am just catching up on the conversation
here, so apologies if I missed earlier explanation, but I remember
discussing this issue a while back on either -legal or -general (I'll
look when I have a few more moments). On https://spdx.org/ids-how it
currently says:

> When a license defines a recommended notice to attach to files under
> that license (sometimes called a "standard header"), the SPDX project
> recommends that the standard header be included in the files, in
> addition to an SPDX ID.

> Additionally, when a file already contains a standard header or other
> license notice, the SPDX project recommends that those existing notices
> should not be removed. The SPDX ID is recommended to be used to
> supplement, not replace, existing notices in files.

> Like copyright notices, existing license texts and notices should be
> retained, not replaced ‐ especially a third party's license notices.

-john

-- 
John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
GPG Key: A462 6CBA FF37 6039 D2D7 5544 97BA 9CE7 61A0 963B
https://status.fsf.org/johns | https://fsf.org/blogs/RSS

Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at
<https://my.fsf.org/join>.