On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 11:33:13AM GMT, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 9:40 AM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 18. 07. 24 1:30, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > You are conflating license tag conversion with a license audit. Tag > > > conversion is explicitly*not* an audit exercise. > > > > No, I state the old GPL tags and the new GPL identifiers have different meanings. > > > > > This is not an audit, and we have never offered a guarantee of > > > accuracy. If you want the tags to be accurate, you need to evaluate > > > the package every time it is updated. And I know you do it for your > > > stuff, but we know not everyone does. And we do not have tooling to > > > help people audit their packages properly. We also do not have tooling > > > to validate audits in place either. The change to SPDX identifiers is > > > *not* coupled to the "no effective licensing" thing. Those were > > > separate updates that happened at roughly the same time, but are > > > *still* not coupled to each other. > > > > I don't want to have this conversation here again. I won't change your mind. > > > > However, I say that what FESCo approved is not what you are acting as-if FESCo > > approved. Do you at least see that? > > I agree that the conversation in the meeting and what was finally > approved was slightly confusing, and I already feared that we were not > thinking it meant the same thing when we approved it (one of the > reasons why I voted 0). > > Some FESCo members seem to think that we approved "trivial license > conversions to SPDX are OK", others seem to think that we approved > "licenses that cannot be trivially converted to SPDX must use > LicenseRef-<whatever>-<old-identifier>". The proposal voted on matches > the latter statement, but it does *not*, IMO, imply the first > statement. Yeah, I was confused by some of the proposals and asked to clarify and I thought we had, but I guess not. ;) First, the ticket says it's about "Mass license change GPLv2 to GPL-2.0-only", so I assumed that was the scope here, not all mass license changes, but I guess that was not the case. What I (thought) I voted on was to convert packages with GPLv2 to Licenseref-Fedoraoldwhatever-GPL-2.0-Only. This would allow the tooling to work on those things and still allow everyone to see it needs to be audited. In any case, please don't do any more changes and we should revisit this kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP 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
