[RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

Neal Gompa ngompa13 at gmail.com
Thu Jul 9 12:15:07 UTC 2015

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer at fedoraproject.org>

> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Haïkel <hguemar at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to get feedback from Fedora Legal and also my fellow
> > contributors about considering
> > SPDX.
> >
> > SPDX (Software Package Data Exchange) is a specification hosted by the
> > Linux Foundation defining
> > a standard format for communicating components, licenses and
> > copyrights associated with a software package.
> > https://spdx.org/
> >
> > It would make it much easier collaborating with other distributions
> > and upstream projects.
> >
> > On a more practical side, it would mean standardizing on SPDX short
> > identifier to design licenses
> > and exceptions in all our packages.
> > https://spdx.org/spdx-license-list
> >
> > Your feedback?
> Can you elaborate on how you envision this working?  SPDX appears to
> work best when upstream projects integrate it and maintain it
> themselves.  Doing that downstream is possible, but it sounds both
> time consuming and easy to get wrong or stale.
> josh
​I certainly wouldn't mind standardizing our License tags against this, as
one of the distributions I am making packages for in my day job that uses
RPM already uses this format. But like Josh said, a good part of what SPDX
is about is getting projects themselves to communicate copyright and
licensing in this form. I think it's infeasible to expect that. The extent
of what we can do is provide useful information within the package that is
somewhat SPDX compliant.

I don't know if the nature of Linux distributions even would allow to make
it fully compliant.

真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20150709/d560c2ad/attachment.html>

More information about the devel mailing list