Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

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

 



On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 9:02:11 AM CDT Ben Cotton wrote:
> In this phase, we want to provide documentation and tooling to allow
> maintainers to begin using SPDX license ids instead of the old Fedora
> short names. This move is opt-in. 

+1 for this change. I am not a fan of having to remember two different sets of license identifiers and the SPDX license identifiers are standardized and more specific. This will also allow us to remove the code for converting between the two sets of identifiers from rust2rpm, go2rpm, and similar projects.

Will SPDX identifiers be required for new packages? Will this be integrated into fedora-review?

-- 
Thanks,

Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux