On 6/8/22 12:23 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 2:09 PM Richard Fontana
<rfontana(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 1:58 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> ` If the license is not on the SPDX License List, then submit the license to the
to the SPDX-legal team at
https://tools.spdx.org/app/submit_new_license/. In addition to
the required information, include a note that it is under review for Fedora and a link to
the related Fedora License Data Gitlab issue.
> Shouldn't this step depend on the license actually being approved by
> Fedora first? I guess that's more of an SPDX question than a Fedora
> question. Do you want people to be submitting licenses to SPDX even if
> the end result might be that Fedora classifies it as "not allowed"? Of
> course the license might still meet SPDX's inclusion guidelines.
>
It should be approved by Fedora with a provisional identifier, and
that identifier should be forwarded to SPDX. We don't want to have
Fedora wait on SPDX.
I already responded to Richard's comment above as to why not wait on
this step, but to add to that and in light of Neal's comment about the
identifier - while "waiting on SPDX" is not ideal, we also don't want to
jump to fast to using a provisional identifier, as it's on the SPDX
legal team to ensure that identifier is not already used by another
license - pretty important aspect for all involved.
For insight as to how the process works over at SPDX - here is an
example of a (Fedora) license I submitted the other day:
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1522
Jilayne