Auditing the augeas project source file licenses I found a handful of files where the license was not specified sufficiently clearly. I've raised this upstream: https://github.com/hercules-team/augeas/issues/816 For the unspecified BSD variant the original author has already confirmed they're ok with BSD-2-Clause which solves that case, but I'm doubtful they'll resolve everything in a sufficiently fast timeframe for Fedora's SPDX conversion. In a few of the cases which say "LGPL" or "LGPLv2+" without an exact version, I'm fairly comfortable assuming the intent was to match the augeas overall license which was LGPL-2.1-or-later. For the files which merely say: This file is licensed under the GPL. I'm not sure what the best practice is ? Can I justify "GPL-1.0-or-later" in the Fedora spec on the basis that the non-version specific declaration in the source could legitimately cover any GPL version ? With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| _______________________________________________ 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
