On Thursday, May 26, 2022 2:15:54 PM CDT Kevin P. Fleming wrote: > On 5/26/22 15:00, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > > 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? > > Fedora uses 'BSD' for a variety of licenses, many of which have specific > SPDX identifiers. MIT and BSD are the most common problem areas for this > situation. Plain "BSD" does not exist as a license in SPDX. I believe Gary is talking about license identifiers that exist in both SPDX and Fedora but have different meanings. This is the case for "MIT." (Edit: Gary confirmed this in the next email...) It's also worth noting that "CDDL-1.0" and "CDDL-1.1" are in both SPDX and Fedora but refer to the same license. This is not the only example of a Fedora license identifier that also exists in SPDX and refers to the same license text. Assuming these license identifiers aren't combined with Fedora-only identifiers with "and" or "or", those won't need to be converted at all (besides by prepending "SPDX:" if we decide to go that route). -- 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
