On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 11:22 AM Maxwell G <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
This raises the issue of what "automatically compliant" means. Nominally, "License: MIT" is both Callaway-compliant and SPDX-compliant, but of course using "MIT" in the Callaway sense is not what is expected in the SPDX/post-Callaway era. Even in those cases where the Callaway identifier is not conceived as an 'umbrella' label, I am not sure it is right to view, say, "License: Apache-2.0" resulting from a superficial translation of "License: ASL 2.0" as compliant with post-Callaway standards (or even strict application of Callaway standards, come to think of it). I think Jilayne may see this differently though. :) Richard _______________________________________________ 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
