license formatting

Jeffrey Johnson n3npq at
Fri Dec 28 22:29:06 CET 2012

On Dec 28, 2012, at 2:58 PM, Jakub Bogusz wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 12:48:55AM +0200, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>> hi
>> perhaps we should use identifiers what that page uses.
>> if yes, then i'll do mass update of all specs master branches, update 
>> adapter and rpmlint with the licenses list.
> "License" is meant to be rather human-readable.

Yes. But the humans who are most interested in License: tags
are auditors and lawyers with a strict interpretation of what words
are used because of the underlying semantic intent represented
by acronyms used as tokens (i.e. theses aren't words that humans
communicate with).

> We could adapt some abbreviations from this list, but I'd stick to " v"
> version separator instead of dash.

If PLD undertakes identifying a precise mapping from a set of tokens
like { "GPL", "BSD", "MIT", …} to URI's where the full human readable
text of the license is to be found, then I will add a patch to rpmbuild to
force license tokens to conform (with AND"/"&&" and "OR"/"||" and parenthetical
nesting etc) to automate the entire license compatibility matrix.

Fedora has already undertaken limiting what tokens go into License: data,
and is a reasonably complete implementation available for use.

I'm quite sure there is no linux distro on the planet that is strictly conformant
with License: obligations.

JMHO: any wagers? ;-)

73 de Jeff
> -- 
> Jakub Bogusz
> _______________________________________________
> pld-devel-en mailing list
> pld-devel-en at

More information about the pld-devel-en mailing list