On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 11:57 AM Omair Majid <omajid(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hi Jilayne,
Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 1:07 PM Omair Majid <omajid(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 4. What license is this file under?
>>
>>
https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/src/libraries/System.Text.Reg...
>>
>> Should I treat it as under MIT, like the license header at the top of
>> the file says, or under the separate license text on line 4 and
>> later? Or both? Does anyone know what's the SPDX identifier for the
>> license text on line 4 and later?
>
> I'd probably conclude 'both' based on limited information. Also, I
> think the separate license text is something that ought to match to
> SPDX "MIT" but doesn't, so I think the best thing to do here is to
> submit an issue to
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML proposing
> a change to the XML file
> (
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/main/src/MIT.xml) that
> specifies what "MIT" means as an SPDX identifier. Jilayne can probably
> provide more helpful guidance here.
Any advice here? The wording in the second half of the license has
several textual differences from MIT. How should I handle this?
MIT is a category license in SPDX (for now), like how MIT and BSD are
in Fedora identifiers. It's an odd deviation, but I'm not sure what
we're supposed to do here either.
--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!