Re: [SPDX] Mass license change GPLv2 to GPL-2.0-only

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

 



On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 11:22:15AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 11:47:55AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 26. 06. 24 5:59, Richard Fontana wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 7:20 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On 25. 06. 24 22:50, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > > > > Dne 25. 06. 24 v 1:09 odp. Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Could you make the comment something like this?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >    # Automatically converted from old format: GPLv2
> > > > > >    # TODO check if there are other licenses to be listed
> > > > > >    License: GPL-2.0-only
> > > > > 
> > > > > We (the Change owners) discussed this on a meeting today. And we agreed on output:
> > > > > 
> > > > >     # Automatically converted from old format: GPLv2
> > > > >     # TODO convert to correct SPDX identifier
> > > > >     # See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/update-existing-packages/
> > > > >     License:  LicenseRef-Callaway-GPLv2
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is valid SPDX identifier. But not on the list of Fedora's allowed
> > > > > licenses, so any QA tool will remind you to check the license.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > 
> > > > I don't understand what is the benefit of doing this at all. Sorry.
> > > 
> > > The benefit I see is that it immediately causes all license tags to
> > > conform to the SPDX license expression standard, while also making it
> > > very clear what parts of those license expressions are actually legacy
> > > elements that have to be examined and replaced. (This assumes we
> > > wouldn't use `LicenseRef-Callaway-` for any other purpose.)
> > 
> > What is the benefit of that outcome?
> > 
> > I understand the benefit of SPDX in general.
> > 
> > I don't understand the benefit of converting everything to custom LicenseRef
> > identifiers.
> 
> If you have tools which process SPDX expressions, with a full conversion
> of outstanding RPMs to LicenseRef, you would now be able to use these
> tools on Fedora specfiles (more) reliably.

Another advantage is that it makes it (painfully) obvious when the
legacy license tag is used. Instead of a free-style comment in the
spec file or having to dig through %changelog to see if it mentions
SPDX, the information that the license needs reviewing/updating is
available in machine-readable form from the License tag. You can even
use repoquery to list all such cases.

> Fedora could (should) also apply CI tests that enforce a valid SPDX
> expression, as there are almost certainly some accidental errors that
> have crept in (I know I've made some).

Yeah, I think we'll want to add a linter for this once the conversion
is mostly complete. We can't really do that now.

> These are small, but still tangible benefits, over having the ill-defined
> mixture of SPDX and Callaway expressions live on for more years.
> 
> Fully replacing the LicenseRef-Callaway terms within the expressions
> would still remain highly desirable, ongoing work.

Zbyszek
--
_______________________________________________
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