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@lists.fedoraproject.org/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.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
--
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
