Bug 2222089 - autoconf-archive: Update spec License entry to use SPDX identifiers
Summary: autoconf-archive: Update spec License entry to use SPDX identifiers
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: autoconf-archive
Version: 39
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: David King
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-07-11 18:31 UTC by Carlos O'Donell
Modified: 2024-01-12 16:39 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: autoconf-archive-2023.02.20-3.fc40
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2024-01-12 16:39:48 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Carlos O'Donell 2023-07-11 18:31:50 UTC
Update spec License entry to use SPDX identifiers.

Reproducible: Always

Comment 1 Carlos O'Donell 2023-07-11 18:33:28 UTC
Following SPDX Phase 2, may we please update the License entries to use SPDX entries?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_2

Comment 2 David King 2023-07-12 08:14:31 UTC
This needs investigation in terms of handling the current GPLv3+ with exceptions license.

Comment 3 Fedora Release Engineering 2023-08-16 08:12:24 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora Linux 39 development cycle.
Changing version to 39.

Comment 4 Frédéric Bérat 2023-09-07 15:56:02 UTC
(In reply to David King from comment #2)
> This needs investigation in terms of handling the current GPLv3+ with
> exceptions license.

Hello, 

I suggest the following, based on autoconf-archive-2022.09.03-1.fc37.noarch.rpm analysis:

    GPL-2.0-or-later WITH Autoconf-exception-macro AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-or-later WITH Autoconf-exception-macro AND GFDL-1.3-or-later AND FSFAP AND FSFULLR

Interestingly, although the "Autoconf-exception-3.0" license is shipped with the RPM, I couldn't find any reference to it in the files using fossology. It may be worth double-checking.

Note: While "GPL-3.0-or-later WITH Autoconf-exception-macro" is listed in https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/tree/main/data?ref_type=heads, "GPL-2.0-or-later WITH Autoconf-exception-macro" isn't. Which means an issue needs to be open to the repository so that future gate keeping using `license-validate` don't fail.
There is (only) one instance of the GPLv2+macro-exception here: https://github.com/autoconf-archive/autoconf-archive/blob/master/m4/ax_boost_python.m4, other instances are GPLv3+macro-exception. If I'm not mistaken.

Comment 5 Frédéric Bérat 2023-09-27 11:56:33 UTC
(In reply to Frédéric Bérat from comment #4)
> Note: While "GPL-3.0-or-later WITH Autoconf-exception-macro" is listed in
> https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/tree/main/
> data?ref_type=heads, "GPL-2.0-or-later WITH Autoconf-exception-macro" isn't.
> Which means an issue needs to be open to the repository so that future gate
> keeping using `license-validate` don't fail.
> There is (only) one instance of the GPLv2+macro-exception here:
> https://github.com/autoconf-archive/autoconf-archive/blob/master/m4/
> ax_boost_python.m4, other instances are GPLv3+macro-exception. If I'm not
> mistaken.

Issue created in fedora-license-data repository: https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/358

Comment 6 Carlos O'Donell 2023-10-03 13:47:05 UTC
Adding a quick note that the autoconf-archive PR is here:
#5 Migrate to SPDX licenses
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/autoconf-archive/pull-request/5
Thanks.

Comment 8 Carlos O'Donell 2023-10-24 13:16:31 UTC
Upstream SPDX issue is still open:
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2186

Comment 9 Frédéric Bérat 2023-12-15 08:10:03 UTC
The SPDX license has been approved as `FSFAP-no-warranty-disclaimer`.
I updated the PR accordingly.

Comment 10 Carlos O'Donell 2023-12-22 14:19:49 UTC
Added comments to the Fedora autoconf-archive PR asking to merge.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.