Max Mehl

> For the use case I described in this comment, I’d prefer option 3: Thank you. May I ask why option 2 would not work for you? > Alternatively, would...

> You are right, it would work too. I just would have to generate multiple .license files which is rather tedious, especially when I have to merge in new versions...

> For practical reasons, I would prefer №3. > It is more complex, but that complexity does bring with it flexibility to make REUSE actually useful in more complex (dare...

> Yes, but in options 1 and 2, the information in the file has precedence overthe glob, right? My problem was that the annotations in the file use an outdated...

We dicided to not invest much time into automating REUSE compliance during tarball generation / compilation. What do you think should an FAQ entry say?

> Why not rename `FileCopyrightText` to `copyrights` and `License-Identifier` to `license`? A similar format is already [used by scan-copyrights](https://manpages.debian.org/Dpkg::Copyright::Scanner). We would like to have the SPDX project make this part...

> Why I can see why you might want that, I'm not sure that's a goal worth pursuing. One of the reasons I keep my usage of SPDX to the...

Thanks for the constructive exchange of opinions and arguments! > Heh, I agree that in an ideal world adding per-file headers would be better, but there is opposition in the...

Yeah, I recall that we talked about the issues of YAML already when we talked about whether it should rather be JSON. We didn't make a decision as both have...

> The only change I'd make is replacing the `SPDX-` names and just have `copyright` and `license`. Those names are more concise and easier to type, but that'd also apply...