From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ot1-x32e.google.com (mail-ot1-x32e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32e]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 977013858407 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2022 12:59:17 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 977013858407 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=dinwoodie.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dinwoodie.org Received: by mail-ot1-x32e.google.com with SMTP id cy15-20020a056830698f00b0065c530585afso3352666otb.2 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2022 05:59:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dinwoodie.org; s=google; h=content-transfer-encoding:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=slY010gQvfUuGFzvBi80w9XWPJv1/++Rlc6savjWe2I=; b=ava2AsYNCk/KzqDcqbauYQb4YDRPaz3E79Tgzc/b2QPiY9vTCaARJKTEMST8JhB+07 H7i/jMGmxSK1EnX3OBB7FXVroSc4Io8e7PFSslQYgPmMj9qRoiCgQa/Tw4yWcoSKJsSa 5NS1/ByNKToAEXtU6vSplChMqNppqgjX74CEg= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=slY010gQvfUuGFzvBi80w9XWPJv1/++Rlc6savjWe2I=; b=PxyQfH3meXEC4Almmga/Ndns8KGb/d+Jqf3jAbesORy1nKtPknEryL524DnnnsRMNN a9dSjNXGACfhTCkwQYfJrBdkqiOy3071FoSnh66AggFflZmvBgn7mZOFLuBdjvUANge1 gpLkJ/6unLC4ok7i3KrUUCbxkZnVeeMrmhW1kQgRuYeRW/QqmTyezA8sDeuQh3pJA6Bv vPY+yk0R6xOkBsSsdAfInZyhJ622aC8CFsRMgyH0e8LkZAbzyom2NJjx52i2Ke/Mg+54 CgbYnggEXmmNOfvTH6LYnoa1wfrnjSFpTSwYvVXvSUEUVD603oqyUG6PG9oUGnnxBca3 1fjA== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf0B0ddMXCW2F/cGCOjkREhNaYO9X14kFxyWyR8/CItSi7xAXiVk CeLTdgbGgLHl1SJeEL/gl9VBO1W9TLh+Ye6n1x8kOBvSwsujrQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM4pCV9bm4vLaLO7/hig8Bh2d64LL9fTAmfylgFXLIXMaWDQl8Kqk4KCjvDbHvKccFdBm7aFtI1b+hw+L7AYqRM= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:3e59:0:b0:661:c029:d7bb with SMTP id h25-20020a9d3e59000000b00661c029d7bbmr1234968otg.112.1665838756836; Sat, 15 Oct 2022 05:59:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20221011083723.5yxsgtgvooxsdx3m@lucy.dinwoodie.org> <4c1cddd1-0ff8-39ed-0406-29e47db5aa73@dronecode.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <4c1cddd1-0ff8-39ed-0406-29e47db5aa73@dronecode.org.uk> From: Adam Dinwoodie Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2022 13:58:46 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: LICENSE values for non-standard OSS licenses To: "cygwin-apps@cygwin.com" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham 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 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: ['Unkno= wn license key(s): LicenseRef-inherit-git, LicenseRef-inherit-libgit2, Lice= nseRef-inherit-libgit2-examples'] > > ERROR: errors while parsing hints for package 'git-filter-repo' > > ERROR: error parsing /sourceware/cygwin-staging/home/Adam Dinwoodie/noa= rch/release/git-filter-repo/git-filter-repo-2.38.0-1-src.hint > > ERROR: error while reading uploaded arch noarch packages from maintaine= r 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=E2=80=A6 > > So it looks like the issue is the way I've encoded the non-standard > > licensing options. "LicenseRef-"(idstring) seems to be the way to > > encode this sort scenario, per [1] and [2], but that doesn't seem to be > > acceptable to calm. > > > > [1]: https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2.3/other-licensing-information-= detected/ > > [2]: https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2.3/SPDX-license-expressions/ > > That says that anything starting "LicenseRef-" can be used to indicate a > license not on the SPDX license list, but I'm not sure where "inherit" > comes from? Does this just have a meaning defined in some other distro > which uses SPDX license expressions? > > Since these expressions containing LicenseRef ids don't have a definite > meaning, perhaps it would just as good for it to be undefined, which is > what omitting it currently indicates. LicenseRef- licenses are, as you say, anything not on the SPDX list; there's no specific definition beyond that. If we were following the full SPDX specifications, rather than just using a small part of them, the license name would =E2=80=93 for non SPDX-list licenses =E2=80=93 refer= ence the actual license text, so the LicenseRef-whatever string would just be a reference for the user to look up the license text listed as LicenseRef-whatever. "LicenseRef-inherit-git" and the like are values I made up on that basis. If we were providing full SPDX documents, I'd be including a definition of what I meant by "LicenseRef-inherit-git", which would be the relevant extract from https://github.com/newren/git-filter-repo/blob/main/COPYING. I'm not aware of anywhere else using that syntax. > > Are there any suggestions about how to resolve this? I don't think I > > can just use the standard license strings: even if we used GPL-2.0-only > > in place of LicenseRef-inherit-git -- incorrect as that's the license > > *currently* used by Git, but the license for git-filter-repo explicitly > > incorporates any future OSS license Git might use -- that still leaves > > the problem of LicenseRef-inherit-libgit2, which is currently GPL 2.0 > > with an exception that's not covered by any of the SPDX standard > > exceptions. > > > > For now I can just remove the LICENSE values to get the build released, > > but that seems like a temporary approach at best... > > Well, yes, but then "everything is temporary, anyway" :-) Very true!