On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 15:31 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote: > Sometime over the past few days the status of license tags crossed the > 50% mark. Current status: > > 47.03% of spec files (2204 out of 4686) have invalid licenses (as of > Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:26:29 +0000) > > Attached are lists grouped by owner and package. > > I have a few questions after poking through these lists. > > There are multiple versions of the GFDL license (currently it's at 1.2 > on the FSF site). However, the Licensing page doesn't mention any > versions. Several packages (21 to be precise), use GFDL+ as part of > the license tag. This is flagged as incorrect in the current report > (and by rpmlint). But should it be? If for some reason a package > ends up using GDFL 1.1 without any "or later version" statement, > shouldn't that be respected? Yeah, GFDL+ should be ok. > Several perl packages (including perl itself) use the license tag: > > (GPL+ or Artistic) and (GPLv2+ or Artistic) > > This isn't being parsed correctly by the regex used in rpmlint (which > I've stolen and used in the check-licenses script). The regex is: > > '\s(?:and|or)\s|[()]' > > Does anyone have suggestions for improving this regex so it won't fail > to parse the above license tag and others like it? How did that regex get in there? When I did the first pass of the changes for rpmlint, this was my regex: '\sand\s|\sor\s|\(|\)' It works properly on the perl license tag, with the exception that GPL+ or Artistic and GPLv2+ or Artistic are ok, and should be special cased in rpmlint and your script (just Artistic is not OK). ~spot _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
