On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 03:53:51PM +0200, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote: > On Thu 09 Jul 2015 03:36:54 PM CEST Richard Fontana wrote: > > Can you elaborate a bit on the MIT(Fedora) != MIT(SPDX)? > > Is the SPDX text of MIT different from what we'd consider MIT in > Fedora? One difference I can see is that SPDX defines "canonical" text > of the license where Fedora lumps several texts[1] into 1 short name. Yes, that is it (well, there may be additional incongruities but that's the one I know about). To use "MIT" in the way Fedora does would conflict with the whole philosophy of the SPDX abbreviation system, as I understand it. > Without looking too much into SPDX license list - would some of the > licenses we currently consider MIT fall under different license name > under SPDX? No, because they wouldn't have any standard name. As I understand it, SPDX has created a set of abbreviations meant to cover the most commonly-encountered license texts or license notices. Most of the licenses that Fedora classifies as "MIT" would not have any SPDX name (maybe even all but the OSI-style MIT license). RF _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
