Dne 04. 04. 23 v 3:20 Richard Shaw napsal(a):
WARNING: This is a small rant...
np :)
I decided to look up my packages on
src.fedoraproject.org
<
http://src.fedoraproject.org> (I'm still not sure if it's
showing me all packages I'm admin of, or just main admin) and start working through
them one by one.
Thank you for doing that. Even if you give up at the end.
I have updated my licensecount script which summarises the licenses in a source and uses
licensecheck to output SPDX
licenses instead, but they output the "short" form as far as I can tell, not
the form that we want in the SPEC file.
Try:
licensecheck --shortname-scheme=spdx -r .
this gives me *almost* the wanted result:
./rpmconf.spec: *No copyright* GPL-3
./bin/rpmconf: GPL-3.0-or-later
./rpmconf/rpmconf.py: GPL-3.0-or-later
Last two lines are correct. The first line still use the short form. I consider it a
isolated bug of licensecheck - feel
free to report issue there.
Additionally, spectool does not complain that the short format for
the license is used.
I think that spectool does not complain about anything. Unless it is fatal parsing error.
We have rpmlint and rpminspect
for that. AFAIK both tool has been already migrated and will complain when you use short
format.
While no matter what we do, there are maintainers that are not going to proactively
update their packages, until we
unify the tools and documentation to "do the right thing", we're pissing in
the wind.
*nod* but it is Herculean task and chicken-egg problem. The tooling hesitate to migrate
until the data migrated, the
data can be hardly migrated until the tooling migrated. And there is not just one tool,
but lots of them. Personally, I
am very satisfied how many tooling has been migrated so far. But I recognize it is not
everything.
Googling only found:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/update-existing-packages/#_pro...
When we have consistent tools and documentation I will resume my efforts to update my
package.
On a side note, I keep seeing the statistics around what packages can be
"trivially" converted to SPDX format, but I
really think this is an opportunity to re-evaluate the licences on all packages to make
sure they're correct.
*nod* That is why I am asking maintainers to do the migration on their own. You know your
package, you know the quirk,
the licensing issues. You can do that easily. If the Change Owners had to do the audit
manualy it would took 20 years.
We have plan to do the automated auditing - likely even after every commit - but alter to
tooling to handle both old and
new format is two times bigger task than handling only the new format. And would likely
produce lots of false output.
If you have an issue and want to help I highly recommend visiting SPDX office hours - see
mails in this ML with subject
"SPDX office hours", there is present at least one lawyer and at least one
devel.
Miroslav