We have quite a few packages in Fedora that are released under some version of the LGPL with what SPDX calls OCaml-LGPL-linking-exception. That exception does not appear in the rpmlint-fedora-license-data package. I'm looking at /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml, at the bottom, in ValidLicenseExceptions. Indeed, when I tried to use it, rpmlint complained:
frama-c.x86_64: W: invalid-license-exception OCaml-LGPL-linking-exception
Should I include this exception when converting OCaml package License tags to SPDX format?
Thank you,
On Sat, Nov 26, 2022 at 6:15 PM Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com wrote:
We have quite a few packages in Fedora that are released under some version of the LGPL with what SPDX calls OCaml-LGPL-linking-exception. That exception does not appear in the rpmlint-fedora-license-data package. I'm looking at /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml, at the bottom, in ValidLicenseExceptions. Indeed, when I tried to use it, rpmlint complained:
frama-c.x86_64: W: invalid-license-exception OCaml-LGPL-linking-exception
Should I include this exception when converting OCaml package License tags to SPDX format?
Please send a merge request to add it to fedora-license-data. While I'm not in control of the license data package, I would say go ahead and used the identifier, since it's an existing condition we've always accepted and it's already SPDX-recognized.
-- 真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!
On Sat, Nov 26, 2022 at 4:18 PM Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com wrote:
Please send a merge request to add it to fedora-license-data. While I'm not in control of the license data package, I would say go ahead and used the identifier, since it's an existing condition we've always accepted and it's already SPDX-recognized.
Will do. Thanks, Neal.