Hi reuse list,
Forwarding this e-mail I got from Luis (Tidelift) after he kindly
offered to offer me feedback.
Je mer, 2019-04-24 je 12:57 -0700, Luis Villa skribis:
> Hey, Carmen- [+work email]
> Great meeting you in Barcelona!
>
> Couple of observations on Reuse; feel free to share (or point me to a better discussion forum):
> As we already discussed, "why" would be good. Eventually, to be transparent, I think one reason "why" could be "Tidelift's customers will pay you, through Tidelift, to do it".
> Wildcards/patterns would be really good to have formally in the spec somewhere, so that (at least as a default) something more powerful than per-file could be used. I think you mentioned that's currently possible via debian packaging formats but extracting that out would be useful.
> It'd be good if the documentation mentioned what tools actually pick up Reuse metadata. eg, my understanding is that Valid-License-Identifier is a Reuse-specific extension and so may not get picked up by all scanners? If it is picked up by many major scanners, it'd be good to say that!
> Should it have a concept similar to ClearlyDefined's facets? I think it'd be useful to be able to not just say "this file is CC-BY", but "this file is CC-BY and a documentation file", or rather than "this file is proprietary" instead "this file is proprietary and a test file". Both of these are common situations that metadata would help scanners to analyze and deal with, and that upstream maintainers are best positioned to analyze.
> Have you given any thought to how this meshes with SFLC's recommendations? Specifically, they recommend centralizing copyright notices, and that seems like something that might be worth incorporating somehow.
> Hope these thoughts are useful!
> Luis