So, without getting into the issue of whether it actually makes sense to track differences between GPLvn "only" vs "or-later", since this is just continuing a practice that was in place in Fedora for years (I think ever since 2008 at least?): This is where you can't really rely on askalono, because it only recognizes standalone license files (as far as I understand) and it will say any occurrence of the GPLv2 file is "GPL-2.0-only", which is actually a misapplication of SPDX identifiers I think.
Askalono is probably a good enough tool for some kinds of packages (I think, relatively simple packages that are not "old"), but probably not something like gimp. Richard On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 4:11 PM Josef Řídký <jri...@redhat.com> wrote: > This license was mentioned in the output of the 'askalono' command run > over the gimp source code. > The file-dds plugin directory has available COPYING file which is > GPL-2.0-only original text (with accuracy 0.983). > > It's true that no other checks were made upon files there as I didn't > expect to have a mixture of licenses there. Doing a check of 8000+ files is > quite a nightmare. But the question would be whether those licenses should > be even used in license tags - meaning most of the files would have the > same destiny as Makefiles, which shouldn't be counted in the SPDX at all. > > Best regards > > Josef Ridky > Senior Software Engineer > Core Services Team > Red Hat Czech, s.r.o. > > > On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 4:53 PM Richard Fontana <rfont...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 3:54 AM Josef Řídký <jri...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> The GIMP application core, and other portions of the official GIMP >>> distribution not explicitly licensed otherwise, are licensed under the >>> GPL-3.0-only >>> >>> Explicitly licensed under GPL-2.0-only is 'file-dds' plugin. >>> >> >> Curious why you say this - I (very quickly) looked at the source code of >> the file-dds plugin and it seems to be a mix of GPLv2-or-later and >> GPLv3-or-later license notices. >> >> Richard >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org >> Fedora Code of Conduct: >> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ >> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines >> List Archives: >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >> Do not reply to spam, report it: >> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue >> > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue > --
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
