On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 3:41 PM Miroslav Suchý <msu...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Dne 17. 07. 24 v 6:41 odp. Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > > > Done. > > Hi Mirek, > I am a bit confused. > > I thought there was a clear nonconsensus about the *GPL conversion [1] which > resulted to the FESCo ticket [2]. It is kinda surprising to see the "Done." > comment here and in the LGPL thread as well. > > [1] > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/Q5VAL3I26A4ACWCXWWFHTKV6OXO2GISZ/ > [2] https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3230 > > Ouch, now I am confused too. > > You are right that the final wording is: > > > !agreed FESCo is in favor of standardizing on the SPDX format and > > understands that not all licenses are ready for direct conversion. Those > > licenses that are unreviewed or otherwise not yet fully compliant should be > > converted to SPDX licenses of the format LicenseRef-<something indicating > > Fedora legacy>-* where * is the old Fedora identifier. (+8, 1, -0) > > which means that I should stop doing that 1:1 (aka trivial) conversion and > convert *everything* to LicenseRef-Callaway-*. But I was on that meeting - > and if you read the log: > > https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-07-16/fesco.2024-07-16-17.00.log.html > > There was: > > <@sgallagh:fedora.im> > 17:52:01 > Proposal: FESCo is in favor of standardizing on the SPDX format and > understands that not all licenses are ready for this. Those that are not > should be converted to SPDX licenses to a format `LicenseRef-<something > indicating Fedora legacy>-*` where "*" is the old format. > > ... > <@msuchy:matrix.org> > 17:52:24 > Can I have a clear statement what to do with GPL* ? > .... > <@zbyszek:fedora.im> > 17:54:04 > The whole point is to convert everything. > <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> > 17:54:08 > nirik: it'd be GPLv2 -> GPL-2.0-only, GPLv2+ -> GPL-2.0-or-later > <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> > 17:54:20 > and so on > <@zbyszek:fedora.im> > 17:54:22 > Otherwise, it's not syntactically valid. > <@salimma:fedora.im> > 17:54:26 > sorry, I mixed up msuchy's question with Neal's original response > <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> > 17:54:32 > but then we have 0 way to tell what was converted? I guess we could look at > commits > <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> > 17:54:56 > after everything is said and done, audits still need to be done separately > <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> > 17:55:00 > don't mistake conversions for audits > <@salimma:fedora.im> > 17:55:05 > we might need a second vote to clarify what to do with ambiguous licenses > .... > <@salimma:fedora.im> > 17:58:24 > so Stephen's new proposal is quite clear that every legacy license we can't > convert to SPDX would be marked as LicenseRef-<legacy>-* ... I think that > addresses the ambiguity > > So I'd say that Neal statement in 17:54:08 put me in mistake that I should > continue with 1:1 but it is not in the final decision/statement. >
What you're doing is what we expected in FESCo. GNU license identifiers *are* trivial conversions. The main ones that aren't are the older "BSD" and "MIT" ones, which have no meaningful analogue in SPDX. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- _______________________________________________ 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
