Dne 26. 07. 23 v 0:12 Neal Gompa
napsal(a):
Yes, that makes sense, although for the *GPL licenses we'd have to use what SPDX considers to be deprecated identifiers (GPL-2.0, etc.). However, I would specifically propose *not* using the SPDX plain text pseudo-renditions of particular license identifiers, which I believe are generated automatically from XML files and don't really serve the purpose I have in mind. We should use the license steward-authorized version of the license in question; so, for example, the file /usr/share/licenses/common-licenses/GPL-2.0 would be a copy of https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt For all the licenses I listed, there is a license steward (FSF, and the Apache Software Foundation) who publishes an official plain text version of the license in question.Yes, that makes sense to me.
That does not make sense to me :)
Can you elaborate what is the difference between https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt and
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/main/src/GPL-2.0-or-later.xml#L17
And if there are really some difference can we rather ask for the
change in SPDX? And include in the XML what we need? I really want
to avoid maintaining other list of licenses and they relation to
SPDX ids.
-- Miroslav Suchy, RHCA Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
_______________________________________________ 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
