>> Hilariously, X.org's standard license text (as found near the top of
>> xserver/COPYING) would match neither SPDX's "MIT" nor its "X11" license.
SPDX provides a more accurate way to represent the licensing of a package. For example the following SPDX report illustrates that the licensing of xorg-server-1.12.2.tar.bz2 is more than a single variant of the MIT license:
http://spdx.windriver.com/LQI/Report/xorg-server-1.12.2.tar.bz2_7fe6bfc076.htm
The report's "LicenseRef" tab represents less common licenses (or variants of licenses).
- Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: legal-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:legal-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adam Jackson
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 7:47 AM
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
Cc: Fedora legal mailing list
Subject: Re: [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags
On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 10:05 -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 03:53:51PM +0200, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
> > 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).
Hilariously, X.org's standard license text (as found near the top of
xserver/COPYING) would match neither SPDX's "MIT" nor its "X11" license.
- ajax
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
