On Mon Sep 19, 2022 at 9:22 AM CDT, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > I was curious how many packages are already converted to SPDX. > > I downloaded all spec files and count how many of them contains "spdx" string > (case insensitive). Assuming most > packagers mention it either in changelog or in comment near License field. > > The string is in 347 out of 23155 spec files. That is less than 2% of > packages. > > It is wild guess with many incorrect of assumtions, but I guess the order of > magnitude is correct. > > That is just FYI. I will not do anything to progress faster, because > `fedora-license-data` has enough issues (and mainly > flow of new issues).
FWIW, here are two other possible metrics: $ rg -l '^License:.*(AND|OR|WITH)' | wc -l 394 This assumes that packages with SPDX identifiers will have uppercase boolean operators if they are multi licensed. It of course doesn't cover single licensed SPDX packages. I was also curious how many packages are automatically compliant due to identifiers that are the same between Callaway and SPDX. This yields a much larger number. $ rg -l '^License:\s*(MIT|Unlicense|Beearware|WTFPL|MIT-0|Zed|0BSD|OpenSSL|Ruby|PostgreSQL)$' | wc -l 4636 (There are probably more cases. I didn't bother to iterate over the entire license list to find all of the cases of shared license identifiers. I did this by hand.) Maybe I'll write a script to get more accurate metrics if I find some spare time, but as you said, there are more important issues to deal with. -- Maxwell G (@gotmax23) Pronouns: He/Him/His
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
