On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 at 05:48, Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 26. 06. 24 5:59, Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 7:20 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On 25. 06. 24 22:50, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > >>> Dne 25. 06. 24 v 1:09 odp. Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > >>>> > >>>> Could you make the comment something like this? > >>>> > >>>> # Automatically converted from old format: GPLv2 > >>>> # TODO check if there are other licenses to be listed > >>>> License: GPL-2.0-only > >>> > >>> We (the Change owners) discussed this on a meeting today. And we agreed on output: > >>> > >>> # Automatically converted from old format: GPLv2 > >>> # TODO convert to correct SPDX identifier > >>> # See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/update-existing-packages/ > >>> License: LicenseRef-Callaway-GPLv2 > >>> > >>> This is valid SPDX identifier. But not on the list of Fedora's allowed > >>> licenses, so any QA tool will remind you to check the license. > >>> > >>> What do you think? > >> > >> I don't understand what is the benefit of doing this at all. Sorry. > > > > The benefit I see is that it immediately causes all license tags to > > conform to the SPDX license expression standard, while also making it > > very clear what parts of those license expressions are actually legacy > > elements that have to be examined and replaced. (This assumes we > > wouldn't use `LicenseRef-Callaway-` for any other purpose.) > > What is the benefit of that outcome? > > I understand the benefit of SPDX in general. > > I don't understand the benefit of converting everything to custom LicenseRef > identifiers. > > We are already making it clear that the expressions are legacy by... being legacy. > > Clearly, I must miss something. What do we *gain* by causing all license tags > to conform to the SPDX license expression standard despite actually just using > the old tag with extra boilerplate? > > I am not trying to fight this decision, I am genuinely confused: What it is > that makes us hurry this. Why cannot we keep the gradual conversion? > The following is just my take on this and probably not what Richard or Miroslav (and others) are not thinking The biggest reason to get as many licenses into the same format is to help the growing number of Fedora Containers and Fedora Cloud users. Various organizations ranging from Universities to small businesses will be needing to add various 'auditing' tools for Software Bills of Materials in the coming years for various regulatory reasons. Most of this tooling is less than 'robust' and not easily fixed by the users of the software. Running into non-standard fields just means whatever software is rejected as not usable. Using something like `LicenseRef-Callaway-GPLv2` can cut out the user problems while making it clear to the project where work can be done in the future. -- Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. -- Ian MacClaren -- _______________________________________________ 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
