Hi.
Fedora-logos.spec contains
License: Licensed only for approved usage, see COPYING for details.
This is hard to handle in automatad manipulation/validation. Can we get actual name for this license. Short name listed on License:Main and likely SPDX name as well?
Miroslav
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 11:05 AM Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com wrote:
Hi.
Fedora-logos.spec contains
License: Licensed only for approved usage, see COPYING for details.
This is hard to handle in automatad manipulation/validation. Can we get actual name for this license. Short name listed on License:Main and likely SPDX name as well?
There will be no SPDX identifer. SPDX only covers standard license terms. Custom licenses, especially non open source ones, are not under SPDX purview.
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 11:18:23AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
Fedora-logos.spec contains License: Licensed only for approved usage, see COPYING for details. This is hard to handle in automatad manipulation/validation. Can we get actual name for this license. Short name listed on License:Main and likely SPDX name as well?
There will be no SPDX identifer. SPDX only covers standard license terms. Custom licenses, especially non open source ones, are not under SPDX purview.
As I understand it, we will use the SPDX "LicenseRef-" syntax here. Something like: "LicenseRef-Fedora-Logos"
Were I the one painting the bikeshed, I would have picked a string other than "LicenseRef" for this purpose, but as I understand it, the paint is dry.
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 9:36 PM Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 11:18:23AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
Fedora-logos.spec contains License: Licensed only for approved usage, see COPYING for details. This is hard to handle in automatad manipulation/validation. Can we get actual name for this license. Short name listed on License:Main and likely SPDX name as well?
There will be no SPDX identifer. SPDX only covers standard license terms. Custom licenses, especially non open source ones, are not under SPDX purview.
As I understand it, we will use the SPDX "LicenseRef-" syntax here. Something like: "LicenseRef-Fedora-Logos"
The SPDX legal team has indicated receptiveness to adopting "official" identifiers for the various licenses found in Fedora Linux and represented in spec files (in present-day Callaway notation), which I think would potentially increase the number of such identifiers by some significant amount (I hesitate to say "hundreds" but I could see that being one possible trajectory, depending for example on how things like the Callaway umbrella categories would be dealt with [if at all]). The theory AIUI is that any license in a popular distribution like Fedora Linux is by definition sufficiently widely used to justify adoption of an identifier. I am not sure what they would make of the fedora-logos license but the current SPDX identifier list has plenty of non-FOSS licenses.
Richard
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 10:56:35PM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
The SPDX legal team has indicated receptiveness to adopting "official" identifiers for the various licenses found in Fedora Linux and represented in spec files (in present-day Callaway notation), which I think would potentially increase the number of such identifiers by some significant amount (I hesitate to say "hundreds" but I could see that being one possible trajectory, depending for example on how things like the Callaway umbrella categories would be dealt with [if at all]). The theory AIUI is that any license in a popular distribution like Fedora Linux is by definition sufficiently widely used to justify adoption of an identifier. I am not sure what they would make of the fedora-logos license but the current SPDX identifier list has plenty of non-FOSS licenses.
I, for one, am okay with our few non-FOSS licenses using the weird syntax.