On Tue, Mar 14 2023 at 09:37:25 AM -0400, David Cantrell
<dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There may
be longer examples.
Uh, yeah. texlive's is bad enough but I'm skeptical that that's close
to a worst-case. Proponents of this style of license tag should try
this exercise for WebKitGTK, Chromium, Firefox, LibreOffice, Inkscape,
or Linux kernel and report back. Even if you somehow succeed once,
***your result will become stale each time the package gets rebased***.
We're real bad at keeping the existing *simple* license fields updated
so there's just no way we'll be able to handle the complex version.
Even for simple packages, there is no way anybody would ever be able to
rely on the License field for any purpose: companies will have to do
their own checks anyway. Maybe we should just remove it instead of
pretending that it's accurate?
Michael
_______________________________________________
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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
