[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Making no-conditions identifiers optional in the License: field

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 7:13 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > License: Apache-2.0 AND BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause-Clear AND CDDL-1.0 AND copyleft-next-0.3.1 AND GPL-1.0-or-later AND GPL-1.0-or-later-WITH-Linux-syscall-note AND GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-2.0-only-WITH-Linux-syscall-note AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-or-later-WITH-GCC-exception-2.0 AND GPL-2.0-or-later-WITH-Linux-syscall-note AND ISC AND LGPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.0-or-later-WITH-Linux-syscall-note AND LGPL-2.1-only AND LGPL-2.1-only-WITH-Linux-syscall-note AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-or-later-WITH-Linux-syscall-note AND Linux-OpenIB AND MIT AND MPL-1.1 AND Redistributable, no modification permitted AND X11 AND Zlib > > > but then this would be an exception to our original policy? and how > would we articulate that? I'm not sure why this is really any "better" > than your original - it's just shorter and truncated. > > oh, and we should take a look at the "Redistributable, no modification > permitted" ones... that is likely the firmware licenses that were never > captured In the kernel specifically, I think 'Redistributable, no modification permitted' resulted from a bugzilla ticket filed many years ago by Alexandre Oliva where he pointed out that 'GPLv2' as the kernel license tag was incorrect because there was some firmware hex code in at least one source file (this was some years after the creation of the linux-firmware repository upstream). I remember verifying that he was correct but I wonder if that code is still in the kernel today.