On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 3:41 PM Miroslav Suchý <msuchy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Dne 17. 07. 24 v 6:41 odp. Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > > > Done. > > Hi Mirek, > I am a bit confused. > > I thought there was a clear nonconsensus about the *GPL conversion [1] which resulted to the FESCo ticket [2]. It is kinda surprising to see the "Done." comment here and in the LGPL thread as well. > > [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/Q5VAL3I26A4ACWCXWWFHTKV6OXO2GISZ/ > [2] https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3230 > > Ouch, now I am confused too. > > You are right that the final wording is: > > > !agreed FESCo is in favor of standardizing on the SPDX format and understands that not all licenses are ready for direct conversion. Those licenses that are unreviewed or otherwise not yet fully compliant should be converted to SPDX licenses of the format LicenseRef-<something indicating Fedora legacy>-* where * is the old Fedora identifier. (+8, 1, -0) > > which means that I should stop doing that 1:1 (aka trivial) conversion and convert *everything* to LicenseRef-Callaway-*. But I was on that meeting - and if you read the log: > > https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-07-16/fesco.2024-07-16-17.00.log.html > > There was: > > <@sgallagh:fedora.im> > 17:52:01 > Proposal: FESCo is in favor of standardizing on the SPDX format and understands that not all licenses are ready for this. Those that are not should be converted to SPDX licenses to a format `LicenseRef-<something indicating Fedora legacy>-*` where "*" is the old format. > > ... > <@msuchy:matrix.org> > 17:52:24 > Can I have a clear statement what to do with GPL* ? > .... > <@zbyszek:fedora.im> > 17:54:04 > The whole point is to convert everything. > <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> > 17:54:08 > nirik: it'd be GPLv2 -> GPL-2.0-only, GPLv2+ -> GPL-2.0-or-later > <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> > 17:54:20 > and so on > <@zbyszek:fedora.im> > 17:54:22 > Otherwise, it's not syntactically valid. > <@salimma:fedora.im> > 17:54:26 > sorry, I mixed up msuchy's question with Neal's original response > <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> > 17:54:32 > but then we have 0 way to tell what was converted? I guess we could look at commits > <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> > 17:54:56 > after everything is said and done, audits still need to be done separately > <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> > 17:55:00 > don't mistake conversions for audits > <@salimma:fedora.im> > 17:55:05 > we might need a second vote to clarify what to do with ambiguous licenses > .... > <@salimma:fedora.im> > 17:58:24 > so Stephen's new proposal is quite clear that every legacy license we can't convert to SPDX would be marked as LicenseRef-<legacy>-* ... I think that addresses the ambiguity > > So I'd say that Neal statement in 17:54:08 put me in mistake that I should continue with 1:1 but it is not in the final decision/statement. > What you're doing is what we expected in FESCo. GNU license identifiers *are* trivial conversions. The main ones that aren't are the older "BSD" and "MIT" ones, which have no meaningful analogue in SPDX. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- _______________________________________________ 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
