On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 4:20 AM Phil Odence via lists.spdx.org <phil.odence= [email protected]> wrote:
> Nice. This certainly makes it easy to map from Fedora to SPDX IDs! > > *SPDX license identifiers have emerged as a standard* > > > > Woo hoo! > > _,_._,_ > > I hope you are all ready for the upcoming pains in the next few years. Transitioning Fedora to SPDX is not going to be a happy time for a little while, since there's a huge impedance mismatch between Fedora and SPDX, as well as an incomplete identification of licenses on the SPDX side. I know I'm not looking forward to recategorizing all the MIT and BSD license variants. I expect we're going to see a lot of new license submissions over the coming years as all packages get re-audited in a future phase... I wonder if we're going to regret this extra "precision" in the end? On a personal note, I am still rather upset about some aspects of the expression syntax that I had been informed years ago would be fixed, but has apparently not been. In particular, the specification still does not allow lowercase "or"/"and"/"with" even though all the parsers accept it. Reading SPDX expressions with capital operands is very painful for humans (which is what these things are *actually* for). Any chance we can get this fixed soon? -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#4735): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/message/4735 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/92694568/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
