On Tue 26 Jul 2016 10:44:24 AM CEST Haïkel wrote:
2016-07-26 3:38 GMT+02:00 Dennis Gilmore <dennis(a)ausil.us>:
>
> A way to deal with it could be to enance rpmdev-bumpspec that we use in mass
> rebuilds. or one of the other mass rebuild script, or for that matter if we
> had a script that could do the conversion we could integare it into the mass
> rebuild process. I am willing to make the changes needed to make it happen as
> part of the next mass rebuild. It would require someone to script the
> conversion from what we have to SPDX. it would still take time to propagate
> everywhere. We would probably want to extend rpmlint and the review scripts
> to throw a warning on it.
>
> Dennis
I can volunteer for that, it's even a better plan than the one I suggested.
I already wrote code to do the reverse conversion (from SPDX to Fedora
short license tags)
But that seems one of the easiest point to solve here.
So here's a question:
SPDX is *very* clear that when you say MIT you mean this one:
https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT
On the other hand when you see "MIT" in License tag in spec file it can
be any of these:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT
So we can easily "pretend" we are matching SPDX license tags. But the
right thing would be to add all kinds of license variant identifiers -
one for each license text.
Otherwise we'll have packages with license text that does *not* exist in
SPDX but we're going to be pretending that's the text. Right now our
wiki is at least obviously ambiguous - it can be any of the variants.
--
Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky(a)redhat.com>
Business System Analyst, PnT DevOps - Brno
PGP: 7B087241
Red Hat Inc.
http://cz.redhat.com