[Fedora-legal-list] [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

[Stanislav Ochotnicky]

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 at 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[1] 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
under SPDX?

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT

--
Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky at redhat.com>
Business System Analyst, PnT DevOps PMO Team - Brno

PGP: 7B087241
Red Hat Inc.                               http://cz.redhat.com