Re: [patch 0/9] scripts/spdxcheck: Better statistics and exclude handling

[Max Mehl <max.mehl@fsfe.org>]

~ Thomas Gleixner [2022-05-16 20:59 +0200]:
> On Mon, May 16 2022 at 20:52, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, excluding files (i.e. not adding machine-readable
>>> license/copyright information to it) would also block reaching full
>>> compliance with the REUSE best practices. Have you considered making
>>> them available under GPL-2.0-only or a license similar to public domain
>>> [^2]?
>>
>> The LICENSE directory is already handled by spdxcheck as the license
>> information is read from there. And no, we cannot add a GPL-2.0-only
>> identifier to all of the files under the LICENSE directory for obvious
>> reasons.

Absolutely. REUSE obviously also ignores this directory, as well as
e.g. zero-length files, symlinks, submodules, or .git directory.

> There is also an argument to be made whether we really need to have SPDX
> identifiers on trivial files:
> 
> #include <someheader.h>
> <EOF>
> 
> Such files are not copyrightable by any means. So what's the value of
> doubling the line count to add an SPDX identifier? Just to make nice
> statistics?

We agree that such files are not copyrightable. But where is the
threshold? Lines of code? Creativity? Number of used functions? And how
to embed this threshold in tooling? So instead of fuzzy exclusion of
such files in tools like spdxcheck or REUSE, it makes sense to treat
them as every other file with the cost of adding two comment lines.

This clear-cut rule eases maintaining and growing the effort you and
others did because developers would know exactly what to add to a new
file (license + copyright) without requiring looking up the thresholds
or a manual review by maintainers who can interpret them.

Best,
Max

-- 
Max Mehl - Programme Manager -- Free Software Foundation Europe
Contact and information: https://fsfe.org/about/mehl -- @mxmehl
The FSFE is a charity that empowers users to control technology