On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 5:27 AM Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > But the intent of both is to be temporary, to help understand where we > need to put some work. If this was initial status: > > ~~~ > License: GPLv2 and MIT > ~~~ > > and prior any SPDX work, we would change all .spec files to: > > ~~~ > License: callaway(GPLv2 and MIT) > ~~~ > > And slowly worked forward to: > > ~~~ > License: GPL-2.0-only AND callaway(MIT) > ~~~ > > and finally: > > ~~~ > License: GPL-2.0-only AND MIT > ~~~ > > We would know where we are. Now, nobody knows. We still have to use > something like changelog messages and what not, which is hardly better. > > We could even mark packages with e.g. `Provides: license(callaway)`, > which would make easier to query where we stand. > > IMHO it is still is not late to do something like this! Could we wrap remaining Callaway names in a `LicenseRef-` (similar to your "callaway(MIT)" idea but sort of SPDX-conformant)? Red Hat is doing something like this in RHEL SBOMs, currently. Jilayne? 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
