Thanks Richard, that's interesting. I'm really surprised Yocto only ran
into one example of this kind of thing though!
On 8/16/22 4:01 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Mon, 2022-08-15 at 17:15 -0600, J Lovejoy wrote:
Background:
Fedora has now officially adopted the use of SPDX ids in packages
meta data (specifically, the license field of the package spec file).
Due to Fedora historically using "category" short names for groups of
similar licenses, we suspect there may be a number of additions to
the SPDX License List needed.
Public domain category:
Specifically, Fedora has used "public domain" for any public domain
dedication, without capturing the exact text. For Fedora package
maintainers who are keen to update the license info for their
packages, we have given this interim advice:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_public_domain
and
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/update-existing-packages/#_callaway_short_name_categories
(see section on "public domain")
Yocto Project ran into this in a single case in our core layer for a
single file which was listed as "PD". This was the one source file we
couldn't therefore put an SPDX license identifier on.
After a bit of thought we decided that "Public Domain" allowed us to
license the file under a license the rest of the code was under (MIT)
so we adjusted it accordingly.
It avoided us having to say YP was very slightly under public domain
and keeps things slightly simpler.
https://git.yoctoproject.org/poky/commit/?id=21c3f09880332bf0723952c6e1ba4fcbbf4cb1cc
It doesn't directly help but perhaps worth keeping in mind that PD has
some interesting properties.
Cheers,
Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#3213): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/3213
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/93048752/21656
Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
