Matija Šuklje

I think 0BSD and MIT-0 would probably be our best bets if we’re dealing with software, yes. It is frustrating that there is no silver bullet, but that’s life…

Hmmmm, I wonder if it is the time where (at least in the FAQ) we address that different licenses are good for different types of work/content. Given that so far...

@Flameeyes are you referring to this section and if so, has it changed? https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/thirdparty/licenses#unencumbered

Ah, got it. But it has to be pointed out that while CC0-1.0 and Unlicense are public domain dedications, 0BSD and MIT-0 are not – they are just very permissive...

Good point, @nemobis . The problem remains that if we continue to recommend CC0-1.0 (or Unlicense) – even for files where it totally makes sense –, and the general consensus...

[As written in a previous comment](https://github.com/fsfe/reuse-docs/issues/62#issuecomment-1198565627) it is the FSF and Fedora that have recently publicly shunned CC0-1.0 and the explicitly missing patent license is something that has been a...

Sounds like a nice idea, but I’d really prefer to suggest a more well-established license instead.

Should the tool or the spec be the original source of truth? TBH, I’d prefer the spec to be clean and the tool to adapt. With `reuse.toml` it should be...

Good catch, @bernhardreiter (also, great to hear from you, it’s been a while!) This is to do with SPDX really: https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2.3/file-tags/#h3-snippet-tags-format https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2.3/file-tags/#h4-caveats https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2.3/using-SPDX-short-identifiers-in-source-files/ The problem is that `License-Identifier` is (older...

Personally, for simplicity’s sake, I am most in favour of № 1, and then explaining how to handle having both code that is under `GPL-3.0-only` and code that is under...