On Tue 26 Jul 2016 10:44:24 AM CEST Haïkel wrote: > 2016-07-26 3:38 GMT+02:00 Dennis Gilmore <dennis@xxxxxxxx>: >> >> A way to deal with it could be to enance rpmdev-bumpspec that we use in mass >> rebuilds. or one of the other mass rebuild script, or for that matter if we >> had a script that could do the conversion we could integare it into the mass >> rebuild process. I am willing to make the changes needed to make it happen as >> part of the next mass rebuild. It would require someone to script the >> conversion from what we have to SPDX. it would still take time to propagate >> everywhere. We would probably want to extend rpmlint and the review scripts >> to throw a warning on it. >> >> Dennis > > I can volunteer for that, it's even a better plan than the one I suggested. > I already wrote code to do the reverse conversion (from SPDX to Fedora > short license tags) > > But that seems one of the easiest point to solve here. So here's a question: SPDX is *very* clear that when you say MIT you mean this one: https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT On the other hand when you see "MIT" in License tag in spec file it can be any of these: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT So we can easily "pretend" we are matching SPDX license tags. But the right thing would be to add all kinds of license variant identifiers - one for each license text. Otherwise we'll have packages with license text that does *not* exist in SPDX but we're going to be pretending that's the text. Right now our wiki is at least obviously ambiguous - it can be any of the variants. -- Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@xxxxxxxxxx> Business System Analyst, PnT DevOps - Brno PGP: 7B087241 Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
