On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 8:02 AM Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > So subject kind of says it all, but to follow up, when I google Fedora known good licenses I get this: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#SoftwareLicenses > > Which uses the old license identifiers, so there's that. And licensecheck is a PITA because I have to always add "--shortname-scheme=spdx" and it still doesn't give it to us in the format we want. > > Sure I could make my own script or alias to do this, and I hate to be a broken record but maybe people would adopt the new format faster if we gave them the tools to make it easy. Not sure if this is helpful but consider submitting an issue at gitlab.com/fedora/lega/fedora-license-data or posting a question on the Fedora legal list for what will often be a quick yet authoritative answer. As sort of background folk-knowledge in open source licensing, "Expat" is usually assumed to be an older alternative name for what's now generally called the MIT license (promoted some years ago by the FSF which had somewhat reasonable objections to use of the name "MIT"), but I don't know offhand what licensecheck labels as "Expat" or why. > I have about 5% of the time I used to be able to devote to packaging these days. Understood! Richard _______________________________________________ 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
