[Fedora-legal-list] Re: license submissions to SPDX on behalf of Fedora

Hi Jilayne, All but a few of these came out of my own research into certain Fedora packages or the "Callaway" licenses previously analyzed by you and I think others on the SPDX-legal team. As such, they are all very low priority from my perspective. The priority should be given to any licenses submitted by actual Fedora package maintainers. I think there have only been a couple of those so far. In one or two cases I submitted a license on behalf of the Fedora package maintainer. Those should be higher priority. Generally, though, if I submit something to SPDX-legal it is (from my perspective, at least) low priority. I think it should be easy to identify the (so far) few high priority ones but I can help with that if needed. BTW: I am pretty sure only a small percentage of Fedora package maintainers are subscribed to this list. I don't believe it is considered mandatory or even recommended for Fedora package maintainers to do so and I think many may not even know this list exists! In the fedora-license-data project, I have been using the labels SPDX::blocked for any case where a license is determined (or already known from the Callaway era) to be 'allowed' and it has been submitted to SPDX in order to get an SPDX identifier as described in our documentation, and where we don't seem to have a final decision from SPDX yet. I am not using SPDX::blocked to mean "major event holding things up". If anyone thinks there is better terminology to use here I'm all ears. :) I do think it is very important to have a label showing that things are halted on the Fedora side until SPDX takes action, because that is a critical and, frankly, controversial element of the process we decided to set up: Fedora blocks on SPDX adding new license identifiers, probably the first time in Fedora's history when Fedora packaging processes have been dependent on actions taken by an external project/team. I will admit that I am a little skeptical about whether that is going to work out ultimately but so far (a month into the new process) it has been OK. Regarding 2, I would be happy to help with this but haven't had time to look into what has to be done. I assume it involves XML and I have always hated XML aesthetically so that is partly why I have not contributed any work on the files yet. :) Richard On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 1:46 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: --