Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] license: Sync with SPDX 2.0, pull request

From: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Sergei Miroshnichenko <sergeimir@emcraft.com>,
	openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
Cc: Alexander Dyachenko <sasha_d@emcraft.com>,
	Roger Meier <r.meier@siemens.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] license: Sync with SPDX 2.0, pull request
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:12:16 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1469542336.23580.101.camel@linuxfoundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1469539192-18406-1-git-send-email-sergeimir@emcraft.com>

On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 16:19 +0300, Sergei Miroshnichenko wrote:
> Here are the request for a community review for a synchronization
> with the SPDX License List (git.spdx.org/license-list.git) and adding
> license operators to meet SPDX 2.0 specification compliance
> (https://spdx.org/sites/spdx/files/SPDX-2.0.pdf Appendix IV: SPDX
> License Expression).
> 
> The whole patch series is way too big to send them to the mailing 
> list (the biggest one is ~3MiB), so please find the diffs via gitweb 
> of the -contrib repo.

Whilst we certainly want to collaborate with SPDX, we've never said our
LICENSE field should match what SPDX is doing. Your patch appears to
unequivocally join them as a 1:1 mapping and I'm not sure this is
something we've ever planned or agreed to. These fields do get written
into the packages and used in a variety of places.

Certainly if we are going to map them 1:1, this is something which
would need discussion on the OE architecture list first. I'd be nervous
about committing to do that, not knowing or having any influence over
what SPDX may do next. 

Is the intent here to map us 1:1 with SPDX and are you advocating that?

Cheers,

Richard