On Thu 09 Jul 2015 03:36:54 PM CEST Richard Fontana wrote: > On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 03:22:41PM +0200, Haïkel wrote: >> 2015-07-09 15:17 GMT+02:00 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> > On 9.7.2015 14:48, Haïkel wrote: >> >> * mass changing all specs => could be automated >> > >> > Actually, openSUSE has a tool for this: >> > >> > https://github.com/openSUSE/spec-cleaner >> > >> > It can convert their old license abbrevs to SPDX, I don't know if we are >> > using the same ones, but the data set can be changed of course. > > The point I made earlier (wasn't posted to devel@) was that the SPDX > abbreviations are not equivalents of the abbreviations in use by > Fedora. "MIT" is used in Fedora and in SPDX, but they do not mean the > same thing. "MPLv1.1" in Fedora is not equivalent to "MPL-1.0" or > whatever in SPDX. So what is the point of adopting a different > abbreviation system if the meaning of the underlying referenced things > or concepts is not the same? Can you elaborate a bit on the MIT(Fedora) != MIT(SPDX)? Is the SPDX text of MIT different from what we'd consider MIT in Fedora? One difference I can see is that SPDX defines "canonical" text of the license where Fedora lumps several texts[1] into 1 short name. Without looking too much into SPDX license list - would some of the licenses we currently consider MIT fall under different license name under SPDX? [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT -- Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@xxxxxxxxxx> Business System Analyst, PnT DevOps PMO Team - Brno PGP: 7B087241 Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
