On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 9:34 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 09:25:01AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 8:40 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 10:49:15AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > > > Dne 25. 05. 22 v 2:44 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > > > > > 2) There are tags that might mean slightly different things in each > > > > > notation. E.g. MIT. Is this package licensed with the SPDX MIT? Or is it > > > > > a old-style MIT that might mean different SPDX notation? Note that the > > > > > old-style MIT seems to be a superset of SPDX MIT, so this isn't probably > > > > > getting worse than it is, it's just a tad confusing. > > > > > > > > I think that we can assume that if > > > > > > > > gitlog --pretty=oneline > > > > > > > > contains `spdx` or similar string, than the spec file use the new notation. > > > > > > Ewwww, please no. Apps need to know whether a given RPM is using SPDX > > > or not, independantly of whether they have Fedora git source history > > > available. We just need to record this fact in the specfile explicitly, > > > so it is available both to maintainers and to any apps parsing the > > > spec and to any apps querying the installed RPMDB. > > > > > > > I think people assume we do more with the License tag than we actually > > do. We have no active automated auditing or validation of package license tags > > at this time. That may come in later phases, and lead to total > > conversion to SPDX identifiers, but right now, this is overthinking > > the problem way too much. > > I don't think it is overthinking. The change proposal says > > "There will be [[Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_2|Phase 2]], where > we identify the remaining packages and help them to migrate to > the SPDX formula." > > so whatever we do in phase 1 needs to leave us in a state where > we have a reliable way to identify outstanding packages needing > converting in phase 2. I don't think relying on git logs is a > satisfactory solution to that problem, compared to the suggestion > to use 'License: SPDX: <tags>' in the spec which is unambiguous > and explicit. > Phase 2 will likely include a total audit anyway, so I don't think we should worry about that now. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ 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
