On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 4:44 PM Fabio Valentini <decatho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 10:39 PM Richard Fontana <rfont...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 3:06 PM Fabio Valentini <decatho...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 1:21 PM Miroslav Suchý <msu...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > rust-bitmaps warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please > > > > check > > > > > > This uses MPL-2.0 or later, denoted as "MPL-2.0+". It looks like an > > > SPDX identifier, but it's not (there is no "-or-later" variant of > > > MPL-2.0 in SPDX). I'll investigate and file an issue with upstream. > > > > Jilayne can correct me if I'm wrong, but I am pretty sure `MPL-2.0+` > > is a valid and semantically meaningful SPDX identifier. It is arguably > > redundant since MPL-2.0 permits downstream relicensing to later > > versions. > > It's not on the list though: > https://spdx.org/licenses/
The use of `+` is documented at https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2-draft/SPDX-license-expressions/ (there's probably a more recent version) <excerpt> D.3 Simple license expressions A simple <license-expression> is composed one of the following: An SPDX License List Short Form Identifier. For example: CDDL-1.0 An SPDX License List Short Form Identifier with a unary "+" operator suffix to represent the current version of the license or any later version. For example: CDDL-1.0+ An SPDX user defined license reference: ["DocumentRef-"1*(idstring)":"]"LicenseRef-"1*(idstring) </excerpt> I believe CDDL-1.0 is like MPL-2.0 in having a built-in "later versions" clause. > Also, cargo / crates.io even documents that licenses in crate metadata > needs to be valid SPDX expressions and only things from SPDX license > list are acceptable, so this isn't considered valid by crates.io That is at least in some sense wrong, since the SPDX spec shows that valid SPDX expressions include use of the `+` operator with SPDX identifiers. I think in reality crates.io is redefining what "valid SPDX expressions" means, though possibly not intentionally. For Fedora, I think there are (quite rare) cases where the use of postpositional `+` should be recognized as valid. I know of one package (though I can't remember what it is now) that says its license is the Apache License 2.0 or any later version -- this is validly represented as `Apache-2.0+` in SPDX. 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
