Dne 26. 07. 23 v 0:12 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
> Yes, that makes sense, although for the *GPL licenses we'd
have to use
> what SPDX considers to be deprecated identifiers (GPL-2.0, etc.).
> However, I would specifically propose*not* using the SPDX plain text
> pseudo-renditions of particular license identifiers, which I believe
> are generated automatically from XML files and don't really serve the
> purpose I have in mind. We should use the license steward-authorized
> version of the license in question; so, for example, the file
> /usr/share/licenses/common-licenses/GPL-2.0 would be a copy of
>
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt
> For all the licenses I listed, there is a license steward (FSF, and
> the Apache Software Foundation) who publishes an official plain text
> version of the license in question.
>
Yes, that makes sense to me.
That does not make sense to me :)
Can you elaborate what is the difference between
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt and
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/main/src/GPL-2.0-or-later.x...
And if there are really some difference can we rather ask for the change in SPDX? And
include in the XML what we need? I
really want to avoid maintaining other list of licenses and they relation to SPDX ids.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys