On 17. 05. 22 16:02, Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee.
== Summary ==
Transition from Fedora's short name of licenses to standardized
[
https://spdx.org/licenses/ SPDX license]
[
https://spdx.dev/specifications/ formula].
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:msuchy| Miroslav Suchý]]
* Name: [[User:jlovejoy| Jilayne Lovejoy]]
* Name: [[User:ngompa| Neal Gompa]]
* Name: [[User:dcantrell| David Cantrell]]
* Name: [[User:rfontanaref| Richard Fontana]]
* Name: [[User:mattdm| Matthew Miller]]
<!-- Include you email address that you can be reached should people
want to contact you about helping with your change, status is
requested, or technical issues need to be resolved. If the change
proposal is owned by a SIG, please also add a primary contact person.
-->
* Email: msuchy(a)redhat.com, dcantrell(a)redhat.com, jlovejoy(a)redhat.com,
ngompa13(a)gmail.com, rfontana(a)redhat.com
== Detailed Description ==
In the past, Fedora decided to use short names for licenses. Although
we documented the short names very well. The identifiers were never
standard. In the meantime, SPDX identifiers become standard, and
[
https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Business_Team/Adoption other SW vendors
start using it].
In this phase, we want to provide documentation and tooling to allow
maintainers to begin using SPDX license ids instead of the old Fedora
short names. This move is opt-in. There will be
[[Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_2|Phase 2]], where we identify the
remaining packages and help them to migrate to the SPDX formula.
So, is it actually allowed to use SPDX identifiers when this phase is
activated, or not?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok