On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 10:28 PM Richard Fontana <rfont...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 9:08 AM Vít Ondruch <vondr...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dne 22. 08. 23 v 13:21 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): > > > > 2) rust-btrd: > > License: GPL-2.0 > > > > This is not on SPDX list, it should be either GPL-2.0-only or > > GPL-2.0-or-later > > > > > > This is not on SPDX list *anymore*. It used to be valid identifier not long > > ago. I am afraid that this identifies is still accepted by e.g. RubyGems: > > I think more precisely `GPL-2.0` and its counterparts are valid but > deprecated SPDX identifiers (still preferred in the Linux kernel in > its use of SPDX identifiers in source files). Jilayne can give a more > authoritative explanation if necessary. :) Anyway, for Fedora, I > believe our assumption has been that we can get by without having to > use `GPL-2.0`.
Does this mean that I can't have correct license identifiers for these cases in Fedora unless I file upstream issues for all of them asking them to clarify? Fabio _______________________________________________ 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
