Re: Snap package licenses

2017-01-31 Thread Neal Gompa
Ah, you're talking about the full SPDX spec. That is a completely different beast. I don't know of anyone using that right now... On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote: > Yes, that's the custom and/or rule I mentioned. This is not the SPDX license >

Re: Snap package licenses

2017-01-31 Thread Gustavo Niemeyer
Yes, that's the custom and/or rule I mentioned. This is not the SPDX license expression format: https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > No, you're not missing something. AppStream doesn't really have a > great

Re: Snap package licenses

2017-01-31 Thread Neal Gompa
No, you're not missing something. AppStream doesn't really have a great way to represent custom licenses. But license expressions are supported, as you can see in this example[1]. I suspect the "proper" way to handle it would be to have the license bundled in the metadata when "Custom" or

Re: Snap package licenses

2017-01-31 Thread Neal Gompa
SUSE has their own list of non-standard references[1], but my understanding is that SPDX is working on making this a bit more flexible in this regard. This was one of the reasons we haven't switched to it in Fedora (the other being the mismatch of BSD/MIT tags to SPDX equivalents). AppStream

Re: Snap package licenses

2017-01-31 Thread Gustavo Niemeyer
That's an interesting idea. Is there a known repository for license texts which are not standard? I see SPDX uses a LicenseRef- kind of reference, but it's not clear what that is referencing. Just another field inside the XML in the case of AppStream, I suppose? On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:58 PM,

Re: Snap package licenses

2017-01-28 Thread Mark Shuttleworth
On 26/01/17 23:58, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: >> We should allow a plaintext field there for this situation. Yes, go >> ahead with "Other open source". >> > It would probably make sense to support SPDX license tags and >

Re: Snap package licenses

2017-01-26 Thread Neal Gompa
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: > > We should allow a plaintext field there for this situation. Yes, go > ahead with "Other open source". > It would probably make sense to support SPDX license tags and expressions[1]. This is used in AppStream, so a

Re: Snap package licenses

2017-01-26 Thread Mark Shuttleworth
We should allow a plaintext field there for this situation. Yes, go ahead with "Other open source". On 26/01/17 22:14, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: > Hello all, > > I'm just about to upload the ldc2 snap, but have one last question > first. LDC itself is released under the terms of the BSD