legal September 2022

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

4 participants
3 discussions

Correct link to spdx.org
by Miroslav Suchý 06 Sep '22

06 Sep '22

Working on the script generating documentation.... What is correct link for this license to spdx.org? License: GPL-2.0-only WITH Classpath-exception-2.0.html My script naively assume https://spdx.org /licenses/GPL-2.0-only WITH Classpath-exception-2.0.html Which does not exists. Is it: https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0-with-classpath-exception.html or https://spdx.org/licenses/LGPL-2.0-only.html for the part "GPL-2.0-only" https://spdx.org/licenses/Classpath-exception-2.0.html for the part "Classpath-exception-2.0". So correct adoc string will be https://spdx.org/licenses/LGPL-2.0-only.html[GPL-2.0-only] WITH https://spdx.org/licenses/Classpath-exception-2.0.html[Classpath-exception-… Miroslav

2 1

Updating old FSF address in license
by Mattia Verga 06 Sep '22

06 Sep '22

Hello, I've started the package process for Xephem, an astronomy ephemeris program, but I've found that some headers and the license file of a bundled (*) library still report the old FSF address. I've asked upstream to update the address with a patch [1], but, indeed, they've pointed me to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address where it's said that the license file itself should not be patched. How should I interpret that statement? Should I leave the old address in the license and update only the headers, or should I replace the LICENSE file with an updated version from FSF (which, I suppose, it will result in the same patch)? Is it fine to replace the license file of a bundled (*) library? (*) the bundled library is not available anywhere else, AFAIK, so it doesn't make sense to unbundle it. Mattia [1] https://github.com/XEphem/XEphem/pull/57

2 1

license submissions to SPDX on behalf of Fedora
by Jilayne Lovejoy 02 Sep '22

02 Sep '22

Hi all, Richard has been very busy reviewing licenses and related activities, and consequently approx 13 new license submissions to SPDX on behalf of Fedora. See: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+labe… Some of these have corresponding issues in our Gitlab data repo and labeled as "blocked on SPDX." From the SPDX side to best shepherd these, can I get a little help on two aspects: 1) which of these submissions are priority from a Fedora perspective? That is, are any package maintainers waiting on SPDX (I know some of these are from leftover Fedora licenses we tagged as "needs more research" when we did the initial compare, which seems to suggest it may not be a blocking issue) - comments in the SPDX Github issue would be appreciated as to any that should be prioritized above others. 2) By way of SPDX processes, when a license has been determined to be accepted, we ask the submitter to help prepare the files for the SPDX license data. However, I'm not sure if Richard should be on the hook for all of these! Can anyone else from the Fedora legal community offer to help with this part? If so, indicate in the relevant issue and SPDX folks will point you to documentation to explain the process further (it's pretty easy, even I can do it) Thanks! Jilayne

2 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal September 2022