Reconsider guidance about boilerplate in short-form ID files #167
Description
Background:
Currently, appendix V says that when using a short-form ID with a license that has a "boilerplate" license header, both the standard header and the short-form ID should be included:
When there is a standard header provided by the license author, it is recommended to use such standard header (alone or in combination with the SPDX short identifier).
Suggestion:
From SPDX's perspective, I'd like to consider replacing the quoted line above with one that is neutral and doesn't take a position either way on recommending whether to include boilerplate license headers, viewing either approach as being acceptable.
Comments:
I'd like to ask whether the line quoted above is still the recommended guidance of the SPDX community. I've increasingly seen projects that are comfortable using just the short-form IDs and not reproducing the standard license header boilerplate in every file. And other guidance such as REUSE Software, to the best I can tell, doesn't require or recommend inclusion of the standard headers.
Speaking just for myself, my preference would be to see the SPDX workgroup not take a position on whether or not to include boilerplate headers if an SPDX short-form ID is present. I see either approach as equivalent, and I personally prefer just using the short-form ID since it is more concise and less error-prone.
Caveats:
- to clarify, I'm assuming that the full text of each applicable license IS included in the LICENSE file or elsewhere in the repo. This is just about, in addition to that AND short-form IDs in each file, whether we recommend to also include boilerplate headers in each file.
- I'm only talking about what to use in new files, and/or files where no license header is currently present, and/or where the person adding the short-form ID is the copyright holder. I am not talking here about removing a boilerplate header that somebody else added.