On 09.07.2015 15:14, Haïkel wrote: > 2015-07-09 14:24 GMT+02:00 Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> What distros or upstream projects are actually using the SPDX format? >> I am not aware of any. >> > > Currently Suse is using it, they even patched their packaging compliance > checkers to support it. Yes, but it is hack-ish. SPDX doesn't provide anywhere near the license short names we need, so we (openSUSE) resorted to keeping our own list in parallel. The idea was to try to get the other license short names upstream to SPDX, but that was painstakingly slow. Recently, SPDX changed the short name list again, meaning we have to go back over it. > >> >> I am aware of some projects using these identifiers. However, Fedora's >> use of license abbreviations is different in nature from that of SPDX, >> so I'd be concerned that use of the SPDX abbreviations would result in >> confusion (or else a costly change to Fedora's practices). >> >> (Separately I consider the SPDX identifiers problematic because in a >> number of cases they clash with common organic community abbreviations >> which happen to be in wide use in the Fedora community.) >> >> RF >> >> > > I share your concerns about implementing it in Fedora, and before starting such > effort, we need Legal's approval to consider this or not. > > It's mostly fixing our licensing compliance checking tools (though Suse already > has some patches for the ones we share), guidelines and a good calendar. If Fedora does go ahead with SPDX shortnames, the same issue will arise (not all licenses that Fedora requires are in the SPDX short names list). Given that openSUSE 'borrowed' Fedora's good/bad license list years ago, perhaps it would be possible to sync up on those short names that SPDX does not have. -- Ciaran Farrell _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
