On 26. 05. 22 17:16, Maxwell G via devel wrote:
On Thursday, May 26, 2022 9:14:14 AM CDT Petr Pisar wrote:
Does a marker of the conversion need to be visible in the binary packages?
I think it should be. According to the Change Proposal, "the use of a standardized identifier for license will align Fedora with other distributions. And allows efficient and reliable identification of licenses." If we want to effectively accomplish the second goal, we should try to make the license identifiers *less* ambiguous than before. In order to do that, I think the RPMs we distribute should clearly state whether they have been converted to use SPDX identifiers.
If we want to do that (and I am not saying we should), and we want to avoid
"polluting" the actual license information with a prefix, we can add provides:
License: MIT
Provides: this-package-uses-a-spdx-license-tag()
However, the License tag is imlicitly inherited from the base package to all
subpackages, while the Provides are not, so this would probably be a bit harder
to do automatically and packagers will forget about that or even easily get it
wrong.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
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
