On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 3:11:39 PM CDT Miroslav Suchý wrote: > We see no reason why not to do that. It should not cause any harm. If **you** know of any reason we should not propose > this, please tell us now. I already brought this up previously, but how will we handle license identifiers such as MIT that are valid in both SPDX and Fedora but have different meanings? We won't know whether it's specifically referring to the MIT/Expat License (SPDX) or a group of MIT-like licenses (Fedora) and we won't be able to tell which specfiles have been converted to use SPDX identifiers and which haven't. From the Change Proposal: > * Convert license string to SPDX formula: > $ license-fedora2spdx 'MIT or GPLv1' > > Warning: more options how to interpret MIT. Possible options: > ['Adobe-Glyph', 'MIT-CMU', 'MIT-CMU', 'HPND', 'HPND', 'no-spdx-yet > (MIT license (also X11))', 'SGI-B-2.0', 'SGI-B-2.0', 'SMLNJ', > 'MIT-enna', 'MIT-feh', 'mpich2'] > > mpich2 or GPL-1.0-only -- Thanks, Maxwell G (@gotmax23) Pronouns: He/Him/His
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
