Re: SPDX progress

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 11:22 AM Maxwell G <gotmax@e.email> wrote:

> I was also curious how many packages are automatically compliant due to
> identifiers that are the same between Callaway and SPDX. This yields a
> much larger number.

This raises the issue of what "automatically compliant" means.
Nominally, "License: MIT" is both Callaway-compliant and
SPDX-compliant, but of course using "MIT" in the Callaway sense is not
what is expected in the SPDX/post-Callaway era. Even in those cases
where the Callaway identifier is not conceived as an 'umbrella' label,
I am not sure it is right to view, say, "License: Apache-2.0"
resulting from a superficial translation of "License: ASL 2.0" as
compliant with post-Callaway standards (or even strict application of
Callaway standards, come to think of it). I think Jilayne may see this
differently though. :)

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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux