On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 9:36 PM Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 11:18:23AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > Fedora-logos.spec contains > > > License: Licensed only for approved usage, see COPYING for details. > > > This is hard to handle in automatad manipulation/validation. Can we get actual name for this license. Short name listed on License:Main and likely SPDX name as well? > > > > There will be no SPDX identifer. SPDX only covers standard license > > terms. Custom licenses, especially non open source ones, are not under > > SPDX purview. > > > As I understand it, we will use the SPDX "LicenseRef-" syntax here. > Something like: "LicenseRef-Fedora-Logos" The SPDX legal team has indicated receptiveness to adopting "official" identifiers for the various licenses found in Fedora Linux and represented in spec files (in present-day Callaway notation), which I think would potentially increase the number of such identifiers by some significant amount (I hesitate to say "hundreds" but I could see that being one possible trajectory, depending for example on how things like the Callaway umbrella categories would be dealt with [if at all]). The theory AIUI is that any license in a popular distribution like Fedora Linux is by definition sufficiently widely used to justify adoption of an identifier. I am not sure what they would make of the fedora-logos license but the current SPDX identifier list has plenty of non-FOSS licenses. Richard _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
