On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 5:27 AM Vít Ondruch <vondr...@redhat.com> wrote:

> But the intent of both is to be temporary, to help understand where we
> need to put some work. If this was initial status:
>
> ~~~
> License: GPLv2 and MIT
> ~~~
>
> and prior any SPDX work, we would change all .spec files to:
>
> ~~~
> License: callaway(GPLv2 and MIT)
> ~~~
>
> And slowly worked forward to:
>
> ~~~
> License: GPL-2.0-only AND callaway(MIT)
> ~~~
>
> and finally:
>
> ~~~
> License: GPL-2.0-only AND MIT
> ~~~
>
> We would know where we are. Now, nobody knows. We still have to use
> something like changelog messages and what not, which is hardly better.
>
> We could even mark packages with e.g. `Provides: license(callaway)`,
> which would make easier to query where we stand.
>
> IMHO it is still is not late to do something like this!

Could we wrap remaining Callaway names in a `LicenseRef-` (similar to
your "callaway(MIT)" idea but sort of SPDX-conformant)?
Red Hat is doing something like this in RHEL SBOMs, currently.

Jilayne?

Richard
--
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-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/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Reply via email to