Bug 2222083
| Summary: | flex: Update spec License entry to use SPDX identifiers | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Carlos O'Donell <codonell> |
| Component: | flex | Assignee: | Arjun Shankar <arjun> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 39 | CC: | arjun, ashankar, kasal, me, pfrankli |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | flex-2.6.4-14.fc40 | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2023-10-30 12:04:45 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Carlos O'Donell
2023-07-11 18:27:35 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora Linux 39 development cycle. Changing version to 39. I had to file a license review request for this because the license text does not appear to match any SPDX identifier. Well, the BSD-2-Clause seems like a close fit but some sentences are missing. Here's the issue for the license review: https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/301 Issue #301 is now resolved: https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/301 Progress for flex is unblocked. |