On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 15:31 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Sometime over the past few days the status of license tags crossed
the
50% mark. Current status:
47.03% of spec files (2204 out of 4686) have invalid licenses (as of
Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:26:29 +0000)
Attached are lists grouped by owner and package.
I have a few questions after poking through these lists.
There are multiple versions of the GFDL license (currently it's at 1.2
on the FSF site). However, the Licensing page doesn't mention any
versions. Several packages (21 to be precise), use GFDL+ as part of
the license tag. This is flagged as incorrect in the current report
(and by rpmlint). But should it be? If for some reason a package
ends up using GDFL 1.1 without any "or later version" statement,
shouldn't that be respected?
Yeah, GFDL+ should be ok.
Several perl packages (including perl itself) use the license tag:
(GPL+ or Artistic) and (GPLv2+ or Artistic)
This isn't being parsed correctly by the regex used in rpmlint (which
I've stolen and used in the check-licenses script). The regex is:
'\s(?:and|or)\s|[()]'
Does anyone have suggestions for improving this regex so it won't fail
to parse the above license tag and others like it?
How did that regex get in there?
When I did the first pass of the changes for rpmlint, this was my regex:
'\sand\s|\sor\s|\(|\)'
It works properly on the perl license tag, with the exception that GPL+
or Artistic and GPLv2+ or Artistic are ok, and should be special cased
in rpmlint and your script (just Artistic is not OK).
~spot