On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 08:50:23 +0200
Mauro Carvalho Chehab [off-list ref] wrote:

[CC += Steve]

- Just like some media documents, this file is dual licensed
  with GPL and GFDL. As right now the GFDL SPDX definition is
  bogus (as it doesn't tell anything about invariant parts),
  let's not use SPDX here. Let's use, instead, the same test
  as we have on media.

The dual-licensing really can't be expressed with an SPDX tag?  Because...

[...]

+.. This file is dual-licensed: you can use it either under the terms
+.. of the GPL 2.0 or the GFDL 1.2+ license, at your option. Note that this
+.. dual licensing only applies to this file, and not this project as a
+.. whole.
+..
+.. a) This file is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
+..    modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
+..    published by the Free Software Foundation version 2 of
+..    the License.
+..
+..    This file is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+..    but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+..    MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
+..    GNU General Public License for more details.
+..
+.. Or, alternatively,
+..
+.. b) Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
+..    document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License,
+..    Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software
+..    Foundation, with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts
+..    and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is available at
+..    https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/fdl-1.2.html
+..
+.. TODO: replace it to GPL-2.0 OR GFDL-1.2-or-later WITH no-invariant-sections

...adding all that boilerplate is kind of a bummer.

At a minimum I'd want an ack from Steve (who wasn't copied) before
applying this, but it would be better to add a bit more SPDX
infrastructure to express this if possible.

Thanks,

jon