Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [SPDX] Mass license change GPLv2 to GPL-2.0-only

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

On 6/26/24 5:24 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:

* Miroslav Suchý:


Dne 25. 06. 24 v 1:09 odp. Miro Hrončok napsal(a):

Could you make the comment something like this?

   # Automatically converted from old format: GPLv2
   # TODO check if there are other licenses to be listed
   License: GPL-2.0-only

We (the Change owners) discussed this on a meeting today. And we agreed on 
output:

   # Automatically converted from old format: GPLv2
   # TODO convert to correct SPDX identifier
   # Seehttps://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/update-existing-packages/
   License:  LicenseRef-Callaway-GPLv2

This is valid SPDX identifier. But not on the list of Fedora's allowed
licenses, so any QA tool will remind you to check the license.

What do you think?
to clarify how a package maintainer might view this - my thinking is 
that seeing
"LicenseRef-Callaway-GPLv2" would be a reminder that they need to 
generally check the actual license, and likely check whether this was 
intended to be GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later (assuming that GPLv2 was 
correct to begin with) Is that what you are thinking too, Miro?

Could you add an HTML anchor with GPLv2 specific information?  Otherwise
it looks a bit silly to anyone who isn't familiar with the GPLv2
ambiguity, and will likely result in unchecked replacement with
GPL-2.0-only in many cases.

Thanks,
Florian
--
___
legal mailing list --le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email tolegal-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/le...@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

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [SPDX] Mass license change GPLv2 to GPL-2.0-only

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

On 6/26/24 8:41 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:

On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 10:24 AM Jerry James  wrote:

On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 6:17 AM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:

We will get valid SPDX formula.

Some legacy license names contain spaces.  Simply slapping
"LicenseRef-Fedora-" on the front will only affect the first word of
such multiword license names, resulting in an invalid SPDX formula.
We would also have to convert those spaces to hyphens, right?

Correct, if I'm reading the SPDX license expression grammar correctly
(https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v3.0//annexes/SPDX-license-expressions/),
spaces would have to be converted and the hyphen is probably the only
sensible separator. So e.g. "BSD with advertising" becomes
"LicenseRef-Callaway-BSD-with-advertising".


correct re: spacing and your example
--
___
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

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [SPDX] Mass license change GPLv2 to GPL-2.0-only

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

On 6/19/24 6:07 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:

On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 11:58 AM Miro Hrončok  wrote:

On 18. 06. 24 18:46, Miroslav Suchý wrote:

Hi.

I am going to do the mass change of the license from GPLv2 to GPL-2.0-only

Hi.

How do you know the License tag is not supposed to be e.g. "GPL-2.0-only AND
MIT" or similar?

Converting "GPLv2" (which could mean any number of "weaker" licenses are hidden
under the "stronger" GPL in the old notation) to "GPL-2.0-only" (which means
all the code is exactly GPL 2.0 only) cannot be done automatically.

Same for the other thread about LGPLv3 to LGPL-3.0-only conversion.

The meaning of something like "GPLv2" or "LGPLv3" in the Callaway™
(old notation) system was not consistently defined, documented or
understood. We've had some discussions about this (see legal list
threads on the so-called "effective license" concept). It is true that
under the Callaway system some package maintainers were applying some
sort of idiosyncratic effective license theory when populating license
tags, but prior to Fedora's migration to SPDX expressions I would have
asserted this was incorrect.

It should be noted btw that much (probably most) of the use of SPDX
identifiers in the open source community seems to be based on
application of various kinds of undocumented effective license
theories. So non-use of effective license theory is not an inherent
property of SPDX, at least in practice. The SPDX spec itself, and the
SPDX project, doesn't really assert an opinion on how SPDX expressions
should be used by projects (i.e., what something like `GPL-2.0-only`
*ought* to mean), at least as far as I understand.
that is correct and I would say that is not the domain of SPDX generally 
as it has to do with interpretation.
In any case, I don't see anyway that kind of thing could be or ever will 
be consistently defined across the diverse reality of "the open source 
community"

I'd argue that
proper use of SPDX expressions should lead to the non-use of effective
license analysis, which I guess implies that much of the use of SPDX
expressions is improper.
not improper per se - if people find a license and choose not to 
identify it in an SPDX expression, that isn't really something the SPDX 
spec has guidance about. It cuts to trust in whoever made that call or 
created an SPDX document.


So anyway what I think you're basically saying is that if you
automatically convert a Callaway-notation package license tag from
`GPLv2` to `GPL-2.0-only`, the resulting license tag will often be
incorrect under the current (post-Callaway/SPDX-based) system. This is
true, but I would say that in such cases the license tag should have
been viewed as incorrect under the Callaway system for at least
partially the same reasons.

Relatedly, I have had some misgivings and mixed feelings about these
mass conversions, because I have worried that the resulting situation
will make people complacent regarding the correctness of the license
tag. That is, they may assume that a converted license tag has some
sort of implied stamp of approval. However, I've mostly gotten
comfortable with the piecemeal
mass conversions over time. I accept that we'll (still) have many
inaccurate license tags, under our current documented standards, and
we'll just have to gradually try to improve them.
+1 I also had a lot of misgivings. In addition to Richard's comments, I 
think I've come to thinking that complacency is an issue no matter what 
and any amount of auto-conversion is not likely to make that worse or 
better.


I'm not sure it's really better to stick with Callaway license tags
for some longer period of time in the hope that the *first* attempt to
convert a package license tag to SPDX expressions will be relatively
accurate. I do worry that if everyone is complacent about this, Fedora
could become yet another project using SPDX expressions
inappropriately.

really don't want that!

In any case, Miro, I appreciate your observations and concerns. I think 
in the long run, putting in place more specific advice and better 
tooling for license review that is maybe even part of the packaging 
process would be better. Even for the packages that were diligently 
updated to SPDX ids won't stay up-to-date over time as packages change 
their licenses, etc.


thanks,
Jilayne


Richard
--
___
legal mailing list --le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email tolegal-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/le...@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 

Re: SPDX Statistics - Passenger pigeon edition

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

On 9/2/23 5:32 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:

Dne 02. 09. 23 v 13:07 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):

"python-lit warning: valid as old and new and no changelong entry, please check"

The License string is valid as both the old-style Fedora license and a SPDX
expression, and the tooling did not match anything in the changelog that would
indicate the license was converted to SPDX.


Typical example is

MIT

this is valid string in old system. And also in the SPDX format. But 
the old MIT represented whole family. It can be actually anything from


$ license-fedora2spdx'MIT'
Warning: more options on how to interpret MIT. Possible options: 
['mpich2', 'libtiff', 'Xfig', 'UnixCrypt', 'SMLNJ', 'SGI-B-2.0', 
'NTP', 'MIT', 'MIT-open-group', 'MIT-feh', 'MIT-enna', 
'MIT-Modern-Variant', 'MIT-F
estival', 'MIT-CMU', 'ICU', 'HPND', 'HPND-sell-variant', 'HP-1986', 
'Boehm-GC', 'BSL-1.0', 'Adobe-Glyph']

{{pick MIT choice}}

It can be converted to MIT, but also to ICU or HPND... and without any 
indication in the changelog there is no way to know if you check it or 
not.



This is probably a good explanation to add to our Updating Existing 
Packages documentation page. I've added an issue as a reminder. Need to 
probably do a documentation update soon...


Jilayne


--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
___
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

Re: SPDX Statistics - Voyager 2 edition

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

Top-posting a few comments related to this thread in total (instead of 
multiple responses to separate posts) and in hopes that people will be 
more likely to see/read :)


As to Rust saying MPL-2.0+ is invalid - this is likely because Rust 
thinks of the SPDX License List as *only* what is this page 
https://spdx.org/licenses/ - ignoring the links at the top of that page 
that provide the greater context, which is really important to 
understand. This is a somewhat common misconception, especially when 
adoption of SPDX ids occurs without actual engagement in the SPDX 
community. Some time ago, I started (in presentations) to repeat "it's 
not just a 'list'" to help educate people and updated the first FAQ to 
this end - https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/main/DOCS/faq.md
 Maybe I need to re-write that lead-in language on the top of the page 
again or put a big yellow flashing sign also? sigh


If you want to pass along this concept to people at Rust and tell them 
to join the spdx-legal mailing list, we'd be happy to help advise.


As for deprecated SPDX ids and validity in the context of Fedora - I 
would strongly urge us to use the current ids and not muddy things with 
the use of deprecated ids. The change as of the SPDX License List 2.0 
added the operators (AND, OR, WITH, and +) and so it would super 
confusing if people still used the ids from v1.0


Further comments below

thanks,
Jilayne

On 8/22/23 2:55 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:

On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 4:44 PM Fabio Valentini  wrote:

On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 10:39 PM Richard Fontana  wrote:

On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 3:06 PM Fabio Valentini  wrote:

On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 1:21 PM Miroslav Suchý  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.

correct

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)
Here is the current spec link 
https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2.3/SPDX-license-expressions/





D.3 Simple license expressions

A simple  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)


I believe CDDL-1.0 is like MPL-2.0 in having a built-in "later versions" clause.
this is more or less correct, although we did some analysis on the 
various license with "or later" clauses and the variations on the actual 
wording and meaning was surprising...



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.
see comment above - but I'd rephrase that crates.io is probably not 
"redefining" but operating on a limited understanding :(


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.
I would argue that Apache-2.0+, while technically valid, would be 
silly/incorrect, though :)


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

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Fwd: SPDX Statistics - Rust edition

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

In support of package maintainers still needing to update their license 
info for their packages - how can we help keep the momentum going?


We have our next "office hours" on Tuesday, 27th of June at 10am US 
eastern time - that is for anyone to get help, ask questions, etc.


We just had a hackfest a couple weeks ago - would another hackfest be 
helpful?


Other ideas?

Thanks!
Jilayne

On 5/27/23 11:24 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:


Two weeks ago we had:


* 23030 spec files in Fedora

* 29532license tags in all spec files

* 18604 tags have not been converted to SPDX yet

* 7059tags can be trivially converted using `license-fedora2spdx`

* Progress: 37% ░░░███ 100%



Today we have:

* 23060 spec files in Fedora

* 29563license tags in all spec files

* 18398 tags have not been converted to SPDX yet

* 6955tags can be trivially converted using `license-fedora2spdx`

* Progress: 37.8% ░░░███ 100%

ELN subset:

* 1831 out of 4343 packages are not converted yet

The list of packages needed to be converted is again here:

https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/packages-without-spdx-final.txt

List by package maintainers is here

https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/packages-without-spdx-final-maintainers.txt

List of packages from ELN subset that needs to be converted:

https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/eln-not-migrated.txt

New version of fedora-license-data has been released.

Legal docs and especially

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/

was updated too.

I updated the progress in this spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QVMEzXWML-6_Mrlln02axFAaRKCQ8zE807rpCjus-8s/edit?usp=sharing

New projection when we will be finished is 2024-09-07. Pure linear 
approximation.


If your package does not have neither git-log entry nor spec-changelog 
entry mentioning SPDX and you know your license tag matches SPDX 
formula, you can put your package on ignore list


https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/ignore-packages.txt

Either pull-request or direct email to me is fine.


Why SPDX Rust edition? Because on today's date on 28 May 1987. During 
the Cold war, Mathias Rust made a pirate flight from Helsinki to 
Moscow and landed near Red Square.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust


Do you hesitate how to proceed with the migration? Please follow

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/update-existing-packages/

or attend SPDX office hours (see different thread in this mailing list)

Miroslav




___
legal mailing list --le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email tolegal-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/le...@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

SPDX office hours Tuesday cancelled

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

Hi all,

Given we just had the hackfest last week, we are cancelling the standing 
SPDX Office Hours for tomorrow, May 23rd.


The next SPDX Office Hours will be June 27th at 8am US eastern time at 
https://meet.google.com/jbz-erzk-btc?authuser=0=122


Thanks!
Jilayne___
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

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Fwd: SPDX Statistics - SPDX Hackfest edition

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

On 5/19/23 4:03 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:

On 19. 05. 23 4:28, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
Packages from this list 
https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/eln-not-migrated.txt
that were worked on during or as a result of the hackfest are listed 
below. If you are a package maintainer of a package that was worked 
on, you may see a pull request for updating the License field of the 
spec file.


python*


There are 384 such packages on the list. Did somebody manage to work 
on 384 packages during a single hackfest, or is this a mistake?


It says packages "from this list" - not all of them, no! And then the 
original email listed which ones were worked on... :)

___
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

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Fwd: SPDX Statistics - SPDX Hackfest edition

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

Speaking of Wednesday's hackfest... thanks to all who attended. It was a 
good session with worthwhile discussion and progress made on some ELN 
packages - yeah!


It'd be great to get feedback from those who attended or wanted to but 
couldn't on doing another one and timing (e.g., day of the week, same 
time of day or different time, etc.)


We started with a presentation and demo by David and some Q after 
that. This part was recorded and we'll make that video available as soon 
as we figure out the best way to do that.


Packages from this list 
https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/eln-not-migrated.txt
that were worked on during or as a result of the hackfest are listed 
below. If you are a package maintainer of a package that was worked on, 
you may see a pull request for updating the License field of the spec file.


zziplib
zsh
zvbi
zeromq
zimg
sscg
libipt
babeltrace
gdb
source-highlight
fedora-bookmarks
fedora-logos
fedora-release
fedora-repos
rpm
redhat-fonts
redhat-rpm-config
python*


Thanks all!
Jilayne

On 5/17/23 12:24 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:

 Přeposlaná zpráva 
Předmět:SPDX Statistics - SPDX Hackfest edition
Datum:  Wed, 17 May 2023 08:23:51 +0200
Od: Miroslav Suchý 
Společnost: Red Hat Czech, s.r.o.
Komu: 	Development discussions related to Fedora 





Two weeks ago we had:


* 23000 spec files in Fedora (wow, nice round number :) )

* 29503license tags in all spec files

* 18744 tags have not been converted to SPDX yet

* 7157tags can be trivially converted using `license-fedora2spdx`

* Progress: 36% ░░░███ 100%

ELN subset:

* 1987 out of 4704 packages are not converted yet



Today we have:

* 23030 spec files in Fedora (wow, nice round number :) )

* 29532license tags in all spec files

* 18604 tags have not been converted to SPDX yet

* 7059tags can be trivially converted using `license-fedora2spdx`

* Progress: 37% ░░░███ 100%

ELN subset:

* 1907 out of 4567 packages are not converted yet

The list of packages needed to be converted is again here:

https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/packages-without-spdx-final.txt

List by package maintainers is here

https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/packages-without-spdx-final-maintainers.txt

List of packages from ELN subset that needs to be converted:

https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/eln-not-migrated.txt

New version of fedora-license-data has been released.

Legal docs and especially

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/

was updated too.

I updated the progress in this spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QVMEzXWML-6_Mrlln02axFAaRKCQ8zE807rpCjus-8s/edit?usp=sharing

New projection when we will be finished is 2024-08-19. Pure linear 
approximation.


If your package does not have neither git-log entry nor spec-changelog 
entry mentioning SPDX and you know your license tag matches SPDX 
formula, you can put your package on ignore list


https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/ignore-packages.txt

Either pull-request or email to me is fine.


Why SPDX Hackfest edition? Because **today** we organize hackfest 
where we show you example of conversion and you will have opportunity 
to talk to us (both lawyers and engineers).


https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/fedora-legal-spdx-hackfest/

Note: this was rescheduled so you may find two dates there. The valid 
one is 2023-05-17



Do you hesitate how to proceed with the migration? Please follow

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/update-existing-packages/

or attend SPDX office hours (see different thread in this mailing list)

Miroslav




___
legal mailing list --le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email tolegal-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/le...@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

Re: SPDX identifier for Expat license?

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

Hi Richard, You should be looking at the new documentation at 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/ for the list of approved 
licenses. The old wiki page does have a note at the top to the new link, 
but we should make it redirect automatically, so thanks for the 
reminder! We do have a list of tools on this page that you may find 
helpful and always welcome updates to the page to help describe the 
tools, what they are good or bad at, etc. No tool is perfect, that's for 
sure! https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-audit-tools/ As 
for the SPDX identifier for whatever text you found, it's like MIT but 
to be sure, I'd probably use SPDX-license-diff to check. Thanks, Jilayne 
--- So subject kind of says it all, but to follow up, when I google 
Fedora known good licenses I get this: 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#SoftwareLicensesWhich uses 
the old license identifiers, so there's that. And licensecheck is a PITA 
because I have to always add "--shortname-scheme=spdx" and it still 
doesn't give it to us in the format we want. Sure I could make my own 
script or alias to do this, and I hate to be a broken record but maybe 
people would adopt the new format faster if we gave them the tools to 
make it easy. I have about 5% of the time I used to be able to devote to 
packaging these days. Thanks, 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

Reminder meeting : Fedora Legal - SPDX Hackfest

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

Hi all,

Just a reminder that the Fedora Legal -SPDX Hackfest is next week, 
Wednesday, May 17th.


See details below!

Thanks,
Jilayne


 Forwarded Message 
Subject: 	[Fedora-legal-list] [Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Fedora Legal 
- SPDX Hackfest

Date:   Wed, 10 May 2023 10:00:03 + (UTC)
From:   dcantr...@redhat.com
To: le...@lists.fedoraproject.org



Dear all,

You are kindly invited to the meeting:
Fedora Legal - SPDX Hackfest on 2023-05-17 from 10:00:00 to 14:00:00 
US/Eastern

At https://meet.google.com/fiu-jdzq-mws

The meeting will be about:
Hackfest for updating the license field in ELN packages to SPDX license 
expressions.


Google Meet: https://meet.google.com/fiu-jdzq-mws

There will be a short presentation for background and a demo on updating 
a package to start, then we'll work on packages and be available for 
questions and help.


We plan to have more events like this to help package maintainers 
convert License tags in spec files to SPDX syntax.



Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/10505/

___
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

RESCHEDULED: Re: Upcoming Fedora Legal hackfest - converting to SPDX IDs

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

Hi all,

We are going to reschedule the ELN Hackfest for Wednesday, May 17th.  
Same time and meeting info as below. We'll send another reminder a few 
days out.


Sorry for the last minute notice!

Cheers,
Jilayne

On 4/17/23 11:25 AM, David Cantrell wrote:

Time corrections from the original announcement:

14:00 - 18:00 UTC
10:00 - 14:00 EDT
16:00 - 20:00 CEST

Thanks,

On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 11:35:36AM -0400, David Cantrell wrote:

Fedora Legal will be conducting a hackfest on April 26, 2023 during a four
hour block.  Information is on the SIGs calendar:

https://calendar.fedoraproject.org/SIGs/2023/4/26/

We will be focusing on the ELN package set in Fedora and preparing pull
requests for those packages to convert the License tag to a valid SPDX
expression.  There will be a short presentation and [hopefully] a video
walking through an example package and the steps we want package maintainers
to follow.

If you can make it, great!  We expect to do more of these events in the
future.


What

 Hackfest for updating the license field in ELN packages to SPDX license
 expressions.

Date

 Wednesday, April 26, 2023

Time

 10:00 - 14:00 US eastern time
 18:00 - 22:00 Central European time

Where

 Google Meet:https://meet.google.com/fiu-jdzq-mws
 (chat.fedoraproject.org information coming soon...awaiting new chat room)

How

 There will be a short presentation for background and a demo on updating a
 package to start, then we'll work on packages and be available for
 questions and help.

 We plan to have more events like this to help package maintainers convert
 License tags in spec files to SPDX syntax.

Thanks,

--
David Cantrell
Red Hat, Inc. | Boston, MA | EST5EDT
___
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

Re: SPDX Statistics - stilus annunciationis edition

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

On 3/27/23 1:19 AM, Andreas Schneider wrote:

On Sunday, 26 March 2023 01:56:32 CEST Miroslav Suchý wrote:

Two weeks ago we had:

* 23107 spec files in Fedora

* 29503license tags in all spec files

* 20302 tags have not been converted to SPDX yet

* 8096 tags can be trivially converted using `license-fedora2spdx`

Today we have:

* 22882 spec files in Fedora

* 29366license tags in all spec files

* 19784 tags have not been converted to SPDX yet(huray, we are under 20k)

* 7912tags can be trivially converted using `license-fedora2spdx`

The list of packages needed to be converted is again here:

https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/packages-without-spdx-fi
nal.txt

List by package maintainers is here

https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/packages-without-spdx-fi
nal-maintainers.txt

Looking into this it lists for example:

libtermkey   asn salimma


The spec file of libtermkey has:

   License:MIT


Now going to https://spdx.org/licenses/ and looking for the SPDX Identifier
shows:

MIT License MIT


What am I supposed to do as a maintainer of libtermkey?
We have documented what to do in this case here: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/update-existing-packages/#_mit

 :)

Thanks,
Jilayne




Best regards


Andreas


___
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

Update on SPDX license id adoption in Fedora

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

Thanks to all the package maintainers who have been diligently updating 
their packages to SPDX identifiers! Here are a few interesting stats:


- 160 issues in the Fedora-license-data, which has resulted in 34 new 
license/TOML files being added to the data, and 18 more ready to be 
added 
https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/?sort=created_date=opened_name%5B%5D=TOML%20file%3A%3Aneeded_page_size=100


- As of the SPDX License List v3.20 release this past week, 40 new 
licenses have been added to the SPDX License List 
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/releases/tag/v3.20
The vast majority of these have been as a result of Fedora's new policy 
(and most of those have been submitted by Richard)


- We continue to improve the documentation for guidance on updating 
existing packages


Related to process, a couple reminders:

Please review the process description for license review 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-review-process/ and 
make sure you see the process through to the end!


Issue titles in Gitlab: The License Review template does not add a Title 
- if you have a current issue in the Fedora License Data and could 
update the title to "License Review: " that would be 
immensely helpful. If you end up submitting the license to SPDX, 
ensuring the name of the license in the issue is consistent in both 
repos would also be really helpful.


Engage with the SPDX-legal community:  if your license requires 
submission there, helping see that process through. (It is not scalable 
for Richard to submit most of the licenses to SPDX and me to create the 
files for those licenses... :)


We have been implementing labels in the Fedora License Data repo to help 
indicate what is needed next. I think I've caught up on noting in the 
corresponding the ones that have been dealt with on the SPDX side, but 
please check your issues and tag me if I've missed something.


Don't forget the last step: create a MR to add the TOML file to the 
Fedora-license-data!


Let us know if you have any questions or suggestions for improvements. 
We've had two "office hours" so far with no attendees, but happy to 
schedule a few more for open discussion or questions!


Thanks,
Jilayne


___
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

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: SPDX Office hours

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

every two weeks was my understanding too, although I don't think Miro 
set up a recurring invite b/c we were also going to try to alternate the 
time of day to accommodate various time zones.


Bi-weekly is ambiguous in English, I've had this challenge before!

Jilayne

On 1/12/23 10:14 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:

On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 11:33 AM Miro Hrončok  wrote:

On 11. 01. 23 20:10, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> This is intended to be bi-weekly.

Every two weeks or twice a week?


Since I was at a meeting yesterday where this was discussed I am 
pretty sure the intention was every two weeks. Yes, "bi-weekly" is 
ambiguous in English. :-)


Richard

___
legal mailing list --le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email tolegal-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/le...@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

Re: SPDX - How to handle MIT and BSD

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022, 12:24 Miro Hrončok  
> 
> 
> 
> I package askalono-cli which can detect license texts and outputs an SPDX
> identifier:  https://github.com/jpeddicord/askalono
> 
> We use it in go2rpm.
> 
Looking through this thread, it seems there are a range of tools that package 
maintainers are using to inspect license texts. It'd be great to capture this 
info along the lines of a list with info like where to get the tool, how it's 
used, how you are using it in this context, advantages/disadvantages. That 
could then be used as part of our documentation. What would be the best place 
to collect this info? (I could make a new documentation page and people could 
add MRs to it - one idea, but open to better ones!)

Thanks,
Jilayne
___
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

Re: SPDX Change update - Missing identifier for XDebug

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

> Dne 10. 11. 22 v 12:04 Remi Collet napsal(a):
> 
> 
> Open an issue for
> 
> https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data
> 
> if there is need for new SPDX id then Jilayne will request it for you and add 
> it to
> fedora-license-data.
> 
Just a quick process clarification here! 

Generally, please follow the process as described here: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-review-process/

If a license does need to be submitted to SPDX, then it is best if a Fedora 
community member (not me) submit it. This is because, as per SPDX process, the 
person who submits the license is not expected to weigh in on as an SPDX-legal 
team member on the approval.  

More on the process for SPDX can be found here: 
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/main/DOCS/request-new-license.md

Relatedly, Richard has made a bunch of license submissions to SPDX License List 
on behalf of Fedora: see 
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22new+license%2Fexception+request%22
As per SPDX process, usually the submitter is asked to help create the files 
once a license is accepted, but I'm not sure it's fair for Richard to do all of 
those - it'd be great to get a little help on the from the Fedora community 
since these are licenses that will be added to the Fedora license data. 

Thanks,
Jilayne
___
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

Re: SPDX Change update

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

Hi all,

Sorry for joining the thread late, but a few thoughts below!

> Tl;dr Please start migrating your license tag to SPDX now. Tool 
> `license-fedora2spdx` is
> your friend. The JSON format 
> changed - but is backwards compatible.
> 
> 
> Hi.
> 
> I want to update you on where we are with SPDX Change
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 
> ;:
> 
> 
>  1. All parts that are part of this phase are done. We are missing only one 
> optional item,
> and we want to automatize the
> generation of legal-docs. Right now I have to manually create PR for 
> legal-docs
> whenever I release fedora-license-data.
> 
Miroslav - having to do this manually doesn't seem optimal, do you need some 
help on automating this?

Also, for the Allowed page 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/ - we have separate 
tables for each type of allowed and the full table with columns for each type 
of allowed license. Do people like having both options? Just wondering if it 
would be easier to use if we went one way or the other (I'd lean to one table, 
personally!)


>  5. Please, start migrating your spec files **now**. You can use the tool
> `license-fedora2spdx` from package
> `license-validate`. Use this opportunity to check if your package license 
> matches the
> upstream version - especially
> if you took over the package from the previous maintainer. If you are not 
> sure what
> SPDX string to use, ask for help
> on the “legal” mailing
> listhttps://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproje...
> 
>  

Can you remind me what 'license-fedora2spdx' does / how it's being used in this 
context?
I recall an earlier version of this, but is this now pulling data from the 
fedora-license-data repo in Gitlab (TOML files)?

> 
>  7. When your license does not have an SPDX identifier, then please follow 
> this
> 
> documentationhttps://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/update-existing-p...
> 
> 
Note, I recently updated the a few things related to this, namely the info on 
Public Domain. 
I also revised the advice on using SPDX-license-diff a bit here 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-review-process/#_how_to_determine_if_a_license_or_exception_is_on_the_spdx_license_list
 based on my own observations. 
If there is any other suggestions people have, please make an issue in the 
documentation repo and tag me!

> 
> 10.
> 
> As of 2022-10-27:
> 
>  1.There are 23302 spec files in Fedora
> 
>  2.264 mentions "SPDX" in the spec changelog
> 
>  3. out of the remaining, 173 packages mention "SPDX" in dist-git 
> log
> 
>  4. 22865 packages need to be migrated yet.
> 
>  5.11371 package has straight answer from `license-fedora2spdx` 
> and the migration is
> trivial.

What do you mean by "has a straight answer"? Is this when license-fedora2spdx 
gives you a single SPDX expression based on the Fedora shortname already in the 
spec License: field and based on the current fedora-license-data repo?

> 
> 11. Right now, we are finalizing the Change proposal for phase 2
>   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_2 is yet about to be finished and approved. The main takeaway is that we do 
> not plan to
> do any mass action before
> Fedora 38 branching (I.e. 2023-02-07)
> 
Thanks for putting up the Change Proposal - I'll add anything other thoughts 
there.

Jilayne
> 
> Miroslav
> 
> on behalf of other owners of this Change (Jillayne, Neal, David, Richard, 
> Matthew)
___
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

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Consider changing the license change announcement policy

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

On 8/24/22 8:56 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:

Cross-posting this to the devel list.

On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:41 PM Maxwell G  wrote:

Hi Legal folks,

Can you please consider removing the following rule?


Fedora package maintainers are expected to announce upstream license
changes that they become aware of on the Fedora devel list.

-- 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-review-process/#_what_if_the_license_for_a_fedora_package_changes

This creates unnecessary friction for packagers that simply wish to have
correct License fields. I'm also not sure what purposes it serves.
Richard explicitly said that Fedora does not concern itself with
cross-package license compatibility.

That's typically been the case, yes (and for other Linux distributions too).


And even if it did, a "GPLv3+" to
"GPL-3.0-or-later AND MIT" license change shouldn't cause any new
license compatibility issues.

I am inclined to agree with Maxwell here. I'm guessing this
expectation must have originated pretty early on and mainly out of
concerns about identifying cross-package license incompatibility
situations (I can't really see what other practical purpose the
announcement would serve). While Fedora package maintainers need to be
on alert to any upstream license changes, I think this rule is sort of
out of step with how such upstream license changes may often occur and
is also out of step with how we are now focusing somewhat more closely
on the details of upstream source code licensing.

However, maybe there is some benefit to this announcement rule I am
not seeing. Has an announcement of an upstream license change on the
devel list (assuming the license change is to some other license known
to be allowed in Fedora) ever led to some action on the part of
maintainers of other packages?
I think this is sort of why we simply kept this policy as-is for the 
time being - in case there was some benefit we hadn't thought of. I 
recall questioning this was to devel instead of legal mailing list but I 
think we presumed that was due to the larger audience on devel.


In any case, the one benefit I see at the moment is during this 
transition to SPDX, it raises awareness and visibility in case people 
need some guidance and may not realize it.  Over the long haul, I could 
see dropping it though.


Jilayne



Richard
___
legal mailing list -- le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-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/le...@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

Re: SPDX migration progress

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

That would be a bit hard since a large number of the SPDX ids are the same as 
the Fedora short names. That being said, some of the more commonly found 
licenses are not the same. 

It might be interesting to see how many packages have had a license update 
since this change, which could indicate updating to SPDX, as well as updating 
the license information more generally, as we've seen some cases of already.

To be honest, I've been thinking more about how to efficiently deal with some 
of the "category" Fedora short names specifically (need more brainstorming on 
that), than overall progress. 
___
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

Re: ksh license change

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

looks good!
___
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

Re: GAPDoc license change

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

Thanks!
___
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

Re: ksh license change

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

Hi,

Did you or could you also update the License: field to "EPL-2.0" as per the 
change to using SPDX identifiers. :)

Thanks!
Jilayne
___
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