Dne 26. 06. 24 v 11:47 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
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-onlyWe (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.
My original proposal was to basically replace all remaining Callaway licenses by something what has become `LicenseRef-Callaway-` prefix. The main motivation is to make sure we properly distinguish between Callaway MIT and SPDX MIT definitions and similar cases. This IMHO should have been done from the start, prior we converted even single license.
Also, my intention was to avoid comments such: ~~~ # Automatically converted from old format: GPLv2 # TODO check if there are other licenses to be listed ~~~ This kind of comments are always wrong IMHO.But if Mirek was talking about modifying all remaining Callaway identifiers across the whole Fedora (which was not very clear), then I am fine with the proposal as it is (including comment ;) ).
Vít
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?
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- _______________________________________________ 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
