Re: SPDX identifiers in old branches?

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

 



Once upon a time, Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster@xxxxxxxxx> said:
> The follow up suggested that the license
> field be differently formatted.
> 
> I disagree with such explanatory
> prefixes, as it requires yet more apps
> to parse/support various prefixes.

No, my suggestion of using "License: SPDX:<foo>" would not require any
additional changes.  Anything that cares about the License field will
already need changes to recongize the SPDX values; this would just
remove any ambiguity.  And as very little parses the License field, so
there's not some big effort to update required in any case.

I just made this suggestion as a way to avoid anything unclear in the
License field, but it would also allow any future alternate license
strings to be clearly used.
-- 
Chris Adams <linux@xxxxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
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