Re: F39 proposal: SPDX License Phase 2 (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 03:16:29PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_2
> 
> This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
> process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
> community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
> by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee.
> 
> 
> == Summary ==
> 
> Second phase of transition from using Fedora's short names for
> licenses to [https://spdx.org/licenses/ SPDX identifiers] in the
> License: field of Fedora package spec files. This phase addresses how
> to update the License: field for existing packages, including
> documenting more specific guidance on how to find licenses in a
> package.
> 
> == Owner ==
> 
> * Name: [[User:msuchy| Miroslav Suchý]], [[User:jlovejoy| Jilayne
> Lovejoy]], [[User:ngompa| Neal Gompa]], [[User:dcantrell| David
> Cantrell]], [[User:ref| Richard Fontana]], [[User:mattdm| Matthew
> Miller]]
> * Email: msuchy@xxxxxxxxxx, dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx, jlovejoy@xxxxxxxxxx,
> ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx, rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> == Detailed Description ==
> This is follow-up of [[Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1|Phase 1]]. During
> this phase, all remaining packages should be migrated to use SPDX
> license identifiers in the License: field of the package spec file.
> 
> So far, package maintainers have been updating their packages in
> accordance with the guidance provided at
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/update-existing-packages/
> and filing issues in the
> [https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data
> fedora-license-data repo]. Miroslav has been tracking how many
> packages that have been updated. Given the large number of packages in
> Fedora, this progress is good, but slow.
> 
> We are considering options for how to more quickly migrate, in terms
> of how much automation can be applied as opposed to taking this as an
> opportunity as a more thorough license review. Automated updating of
> Fedora legacy abbreviations to SPDX expressions is only possible to a
> limited extent due to different criteria used in each system, most
> notably the use of
> [https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/update-existing-packages/#_updating_existing_packages_callaway_short_name_categories
> "category" short names in the Fedora legacy system]. Also, the
> [https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/ policy for
> populating the License: field] has been clarified with a view to
> eliminating inconsistent guidance in past documentation, which may
> mean that a determination made in the past would be different today.
> Nonetheless, automated updates for a curated set of Fedora legacy
> abbreviations can help speed up the migration and serve as a reminder
> and helping hand to package maintainers who may have not started this
> process. If the automatic migration is not possible (e.g., needs
> clarification from legal), then a Bugzilla issue has to be created.
> 
> Plan:
> * Hold a hackfest focusing on a limited set of Fedora packages.
> Feedback from the hackfest can then be used to improve documentation
> related to updating existing packages.
> * Review of licenses for which there seems to be a one-to-one mapping
> from Fedora legacy abbreviations to SPDX identifiers to ensure
> reliable mapping. license-fedora2spdx will then be updated to use that
> curated set of mappings.
> * Packages using legacy license expressions will be automatically
> converted

You have my strong support for doing the automatic conversion wherever
possible. Thank you for working on this.

> ** The conversion will be done in waves to minimize errors in
> automation (e.g., 100 packages in the first week, 200 packages in
> another week, ...).  A pull request for the package spec file will be
> created as part of the conversion. If the maintainer does not respond
> to the pull-request within 14 days, the pull request will be merged by
> Change owners.

Hmm, that'd mean thousands of pull requests… I think if we agree to
this, it would make sense to just push a fix directly. Each pull request
ticket is a few mails, and with 8096 expected pull requests, that is
quite a lot of churn.

Zbyszek
_______________________________________________
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




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux