On Thu 09 Jul 2015 03:36:54 PM CEST Richard Fontana wrote:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 03:22:41PM +0200, Haïkel wrote:
> 2015-07-09 15:17 GMT+02:00 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com>:
> > On 9.7.2015 14:48, Haïkel wrote:
> >> * mass changing all specs => could be automated
> > Actually, openSUSE has a tool for this:
> > https://github.com/openSUSE/spec-cleaner
> > It can convert their old license abbrevs to SPDX, I don't know if we are
> > using the same ones, but the data set can be changed of course.
The point I made earlier (wasn't posted to devel@) was that the SPDX
abbreviations are not equivalents of the abbreviations in use by
Fedora. "MIT" is used in Fedora and in SPDX, but they do not mean the
same thing. "MPLv1.1" in Fedora is not equivalent to "MPL-1.0" or
whatever in SPDX. So what is the point of adopting a different
abbreviation system if the meaning of the underlying referenced things
or concepts is not the same?
Can you elaborate a bit on the MIT(Fedora) != MIT(SPDX)?
Is the SPDX text of MIT different from what we'd consider MIT in
Fedora? One difference I can see is that SPDX defines "canonical" text
of the license where Fedora lumps several texts into 1 short name.
Without looking too much into SPDX license list - would some of the
licenses we currently consider MIT fall under different license name
Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky(a)redhat.com>
Business System Analyst, PnT DevOps PMO Team - Brno
Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com