On 7/26/16 9:12 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 16:19 +0300, Sergei Miroshnichenko wrote: >> Here are the request for a community review for a synchronization >> with the SPDX License List (git.spdx.org/license-list.git) and adding >> license operators to meet SPDX 2.0 specification compliance >> (https://spdx.org/sites/spdx/files/SPDX-2.0.pdf Appendix IV: SPDX >> License Expression). >> >> The whole patch series is way too big to send them to the mailing >> list (the biggest one is ~3MiB), so please find the diffs via gitweb >> of the -contrib repo. > > Whilst we certainly want to collaborate with SPDX, we've never said our > LICENSE field should match what SPDX is doing. Your patch appears to > unequivocally join them as a 1:1 mapping and I'm not sure this is > something we've ever planned or agreed to. These fields do get written > into the packages and used in a variety of places. > > Certainly if we are going to map them 1:1, this is something which > would need discussion on the OE architecture list first. I'd be nervous > about committing to do that, not knowing or having any influence over > what SPDX may do next. > > Is the intent here to map us 1:1 with SPDX and are you advocating that?
I agree. This needs to be set as part of the OE Architecture first. I don't object to the format or contents of the change -- just that it's a pretty big change for how things work. Also looking over the patches, the changes to the license text (common-licenses) need some more explanation. The comment says it syncs to the spdx license list. But mostly what I see are simply format changes that actually make it harder for developers to read the license text. Is there any reference/explanation as to why the formatting changes are required/suggested/etc? --Mark > Cheers, > > Richard > -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
