On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 3:48 PM Warner Losh <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would suggest, though, that if we do this we strongly discourage people > from using these identifiers > for the 'copyright + SPDX-Identifier but no boilerplate' license scenarios.
Hi Warner, Can you explain what you mean by "copyright + SPDX-Identifier but no boilerplate"? Sorry if it's obvious. :-) > Since Fedora--, etc isn't > well standardized, is only a place holder until standardization, and > therefore generally expected > to be ephemeral, this may create issues in establishing which license is > talked about, especially > if the code is copied away from one of those distributions and a fair amount > of time has passed. It's probably important to note that the current interest in adoption of SPDX identifiers for Fedora is specifically limited to a replacement for Fedora's longstanding "Callaway" system of license identifiers which are pretty much exclusively used in RPM spec file license metadata, thus analogous to other uses of SPDX or pseudo-SPDX identifiers in package metadata seen in recent years. Thus I don't think we are talking about scenarios where there would be copying away of code in the sense I think you mean, but we could expect derivative distributions to inherit the use of identifiers in RPM metadata much as happens today. It's not totally inconceivable that Fedora-related projects may someday come to adopt use of the SPDX-License-Identifier construct in source files to some degree, since some Red Hat engineers (many of whom of course are active in Fedora-related projects) have begun to do so. I would guess there is some such use in some Fedora-related projects already. But historically practices of that sort have been outside the scope of what Fedora has attempted to provide rules or guidance on and I'm not sure I would expect that to change. Richard > > Warner > > On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:41 AM Alexios Zavras <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Since we're all expressing agreement, let me add mine... >> and remind that we have this wonderful construct that can be used for "list >> of licenses curated by a single entity but not necessarily on the SPDX >> License List": namespaces! >> We can have a couple of hundred "Fedora--" or "Debian--" identifiers >> immediately, while waiting for the official inclusion in the list. >> >> -- zvr >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of >> Matija Šuklje >> Sent: Tuesday, 17 August, 2021 16:35 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: SPDX License List coverage for a full distro >> >> Die 16. 08. 21 et hora 19:10 J Lovejoy scripsit: >> > What do you all think? >> >> I don’t have much to add to what has been said so far, but just want to add >> a big fat +1 on everything said so far. >> >> >> cheers, >> Matija >> -- >> gsm: tel:+386.41.849.552 >> www: https://matija.suklje.name >> xmpp: [email protected] >> sip: [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Intel Deutschland GmbH >> Registered Address: Am Campeon 10, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany >> Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de <http://www.intel.de> >> Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Sharon Heck, Tiffany Doon Silva >> Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau >> Registered Office: Munich >> Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928 >> >> >> >> >> > -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2989): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/2989 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/84928724/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
