On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 2:27 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > At least in the MIT license case, the MIT identifier exists there. One > reason Tom Callaway resisted changing to SPDX in the past was that > they never resolved the problem with the MIT identifier. It's > effectively a family identifier, just like in Fedora. The difference > is that some MIT license variants got separate identifiers, but not > all. That is something I had been musing about, but had not done the research. Other than the MIT case (and it should not be swept under the rug), are there any substantial use of licenses in Fedora where the Fedora license id and the SPDX license id can lead to confusion as to which is being specified? For most of the software I am involved with the license ids used would clearly be seen as either SPDX or Fedora without even needing to be specified explicitly as one or the other. If only a few licenses are the biggest problem children, perhaps we can focus resources on them alone. _______________________________________________ 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
