From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from omta002.cacentral1.a.cloudfilter.net (omta002.cacentral1.a.cloudfilter.net [3.97.99.33]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 198663857BBD for ; Sun, 30 Oct 2022 17:19:21 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 198663857BBD Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=SystematicSw.ab.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=systematicsw.ab.ca Received: from shw-obgw-4004a.ext.cloudfilter.net ([10.228.9.227]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id p7qTouyn2Sp39pBxxonzDh; Sun, 30 Oct 2022 17:19:21 +0000 Received: from [10.0.0.5] ([184.64.124.72]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id pBxwoTmwKlz8ppBxwoi28A; Sun, 30 Oct 2022 17:19:21 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=VvEwvs6n c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=635eb219 a=oHm12aVswOWz6TMtn9zYKg==:117 a=oHm12aVswOWz6TMtn9zYKg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=zqZvPT55Y0Q9turgVyMA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 Message-ID: <9bbdecd7-10e0-ec64-79ab-26568297b4c1@SystematicSw.ab.ca> Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2022 11:19:20 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.1 To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Cc: Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca Subject: Re: LICENSE values for non-standard OSS licenses Reply-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Content-Language: en-CA In-Reply-To: From: Brian Inglis Organization: Systematic Software Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4xfMsc54u29R61w/Q7TP/OKio/WRqXUIEvNYPTQ2DbaF1UkmMDEG0cqygoae2oYXJHZDjLSFN7KjKSE51RmhZAXKthmuo4fu+FQ9QXJwCNjfW8ruwoKS+s obQcf3uafz9c0MAejh4aJAsLsoO8XsrozyTJ4LebFnk/tJaOd9f8bZ+LxSPuzXVuCzSFoPFPB3br+Lfblr1DY9hvv8KvJsOxuMZIY2XBWXcz0Fi0V2WMmfa/ 8XGpyxv41MrjbopuExBCng== X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1163.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Sun, 30 Oct 2022 13:15:19 +0000, Jon Turney wrote: > On 15/10/2022 13:58, Adam Dinwoodie wrote: >> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 at 17:28, Jon Turney wrote: >>> On 11/10/2022 09:37, Adam Dinwoodie wrote: >>>> ``` >>>> ERROR: invalid hints git-filter-repo-2.38.0-1-src.hint >>>> ERROR: package 'git-filter-repo': errors in license expression: ['Unknown license key(s): LicenseRef-inherit-git, LicenseRef-inherit-libgit2, LicenseRef-inherit-libgit2-examples'] >>>> ERROR: errors while parsing hints for package 'git-filter-repo' >>>> ERROR: error parsing /sourceware/cygwin-staging/home/Adam Dinwoodie/noarch/release/git-filter-repo/git-filter-repo-2.38.0-1-src.hint >>>> ERROR: error while reading uploaded arch noarch packages from maintainer Adam Dinwoodie >>>> SUMMARY: 5 ERROR(s) >>>> ``` >>> Sigh. Yeah, this isn't working well and is causing people problems, so >>> I've changed this validation failure from an error to a warning, for the >>> moment. >>> I might remove it totally, or revise how it works in the future. >> I definitely appreciate the principle of declaring this sort of thing! >> The current mechanism might not be working, but I suspect that's >> mostly an issue of deciding what we're trying to achieve with it, and >> what options there are for achieving that… > I think I misspoke here in saying "I". Since there seems to be lots of > people with opinions on this topic, if someone else wants to take the > initiative and define how this is going to work, that would be great :) > (Not least because I am limited in how much time I can devote to this > currently) It appears that, like us, SPDX uses volunteers (some may be part-timers from RH or other legal staff), so they are still getting up to speed, requiring two lawyers and a non-lawyer to agree for a licence definition signoff, discussing how they should be handling exceptions, conf calling only weekly, while projects like Scancode and Fedora are auto-submitting licence requests for new texts from packages they have scanned daily. I suggest we take it easy about licensing until SPDX gets more stable, complete, and better defined. I found searching some of my packages that there may be multiple instances of COPYING{,.LIB},{gpl,lgpl,fdl}.texi, and the like in different directories, some may be later versions than others, and there may or may not be a licensing definition of how they apply in package docs. I'd suggest that if we can't find a named SPDX (or Scancode, etc.) licence id, we create our own LicenseRef-Cygwin{,-exception}-... appending suitable terms, and/or the package, and/or copyright holder name(s). Then submit it to the SPDX GitHub project as an issue, with the required upstream and/or repo links and texts. -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada La perfection est atteinte Perfection is achieved non pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à ajouter not when there is no more to add mais lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à retirer but when there is no more to cut -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry