On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 12:19 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 6/14/22 9:30 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 11:12 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 11:00 AM David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 04:32:10PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > >>>> In my ideal world, we would not explicitly "switch to SPDX", but > >>>> instead replace 1:1 identifiers with SPDX ones. We'd keep our license > >>>> math and conventions, but identifiers would be remapped where it made > >>>> sense. The more specific SPDX identifiers for various MIT and BSD > >>>> variants would be acceptable, but not required. > >>>> > >>>> SPDX would essentially be an advisor for us, rather than a dependency. > >>>> That's what Debian did, more or less. > >>>> > >>>> As for "FE-", I'd rather not make that prefix exist more than it > >>>> already has to. We also don't need it, since we would have our own > >>>> license list, with identifiers and the will-it-blend(tm) chart. Again, > >>>> the only reason to do weird prefixes is if we needed to maintain > >>>> coherence across multiple indexes. We don't, so that's not an issue. > >>> I read this as you are opposed to the SPDX change proposal as written, in > >>> which case I ask that you remove your name from the change owners list. > >>> > I have to agree with David here, Neal. I don't know exactly what the > criteria is for identifying changes owners, but it'd seem like at a > minimum it would be someone who is 1) fully supportive on the Change > Proposal and 2) actively contributing to moving it forward. > > As David has already noted and others have before - this is not a new > idea. Many of the issues you continue to raise have been discussed > multiple times over the years. > But they haven't been discussed here. And finding references to older discussions elsewhere is not easy, so I'm reduced to bringing it up again and making sure that's all captured. And any discussions that happened within Red Hat *did not happen* from a Fedora point of view, and I certainly don't know about them. Contrary to popular belief, I don't work at Red Hat and have no idea what's actually going on there a good chunk of the time. :) > >> I am not opposed to changing to SPDX identifiers, but there's a world > >> of difference between that and basically saying that we are not in > >> control of our license process. Switching to SPDX identifiers and the > >> SPDX identifier scheme has a ton of consequences, and we need to > >> actually be cognizant and account for them. I'm bringing this up all > >> the time because I've seen it go wrong before and I don't want it to > >> go wrong here now. > >> > I'm sorry that you are still scarred from this previous experience > outside of Fedora, which I think involved some kind of adoption of SPDX > identifiers without collaborating with the SPDX community. But that was > then/that experience - and this is now. Let's focus on moving forward :) > Indeed. Perhaps we'll do better this time around. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ 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
