On 6/14/22 10:26 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
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'm 99.9% sure you raised it here
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/971#
:)
Keep in mind that with any change, not everything will go perfectly
smoothly and we will experience bumps along the way. It is impossible to
anticipate every possible challenge or risk. The best for any change and
planning is to consider the range of possibility, prepare as best one
can, and adapt as needed! I truly believe we are in a good place in that
regard.
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.
we will. have a little faith, ok? :)
--
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
