PR#149: Update Licence field - rpms/llvm

rpms / llvm

#149 Update Licence field

Closed a year ago by tuliom. Opened 2 years ago by nalimilan.

rpms/ nalimilan/llvm rawhide into rawhide

Add parens

Milan Bouchet-Valat • a year ago

ea82c72

List both licenses, use spaces

Milan Bouchet-Valat • a year ago

9ab61e7

Update Licence field

Milan Bouchet-Valat • a year ago

5b56e21

llvm.spec

file modified

+1 -1

		`@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@`
		`Release: 2%{?dist}`
		`Summary: The Low Level Virtual Machine`

		`- License: NCSA`
		`+ License: NCSA AND (Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception)`
		`URL: http://llvm.org`
		`Source0: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/download/llvmorg-%{maj_ver}.%{min_ver}.%{patch_ver}%{?rc_ver:-rc%{rc_ver}}/%{llvm_srcdir}.tar.xz`
		`Source1: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/download/llvmorg-%{maj_ver}.%{min_ver}.%{patch_ver}%{?rc_ver:-rc%{rc_ver}}/%{llvm_srcdir}.tar.xz.sig`

nalimilan commented 2 years ago

LLVM moved to Apache licence + exception a few years ago, NCSA is legacy.
Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception is listed among the Fedora accepted licenses.

jistone commented 2 years ago

I think that change is incomplete:
https://blog.llvm.org/posts/2022-08-14-relicensing-update/

jistone commented 2 years ago

nalimilan commented 2 years ago

Ah, indeed, the LLVM LICENSE.txt is misleading (https://releases.llvm.org/13.0.0/LICENSE.TXT). Should we mention both licenses as suggested at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1866468?

zuul commented 2 years ago

Build succeeded.

check-for-arches : SUCCESS in 1m 12s
rpm-scratch-build : SUCCESS in 1h 52m 10s
rpm-scratch-build-s390x : SUCCESS in 2h 03m 27s (non-voting)
rpm-scratch-build-ppc64le : SUCCESS in 2h 19m 38s (non-voting)
rpm-scratch-build-i686 : SUCCESS in 1h 40m 49s (non-voting)
rpm-scratch-build-aarch64 : TIMED_OUT in 6h 00m 31s (non-voting)
rpm-linter : FAILURE in 6m 01s (non-voting)
rpm-rpminspect : FAILURE in 11m 13s (non-voting)
check-for-tests : SUCCESS in 21s
check-for-sti-tests : SUCCESS in 20s
check-for-fmf-tests : SUCCESS in 20s
rpm-install-test : SUCCESS in 2m 38s
rpm-test : SKIPPED
rpm-tmt-test : SUCCESS in 9m 46s
rpm-sti-test : SKIPPED

tstellar commented 2 years ago

I think it's fine to list both. Is Apache-2.0-WITH-LLVM-exception the new SPDX identifier?

nalimilan commented 2 years ago

I'm not sure what's the right identifier. According to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1866468#c2 it's Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception, but are spaces in the license identifier OK?

tstellar commented 2 years ago

There is a tool you can use to verify that the license field is correct. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1#How_do_we_convert_existing_Fedora_abbreviations_to_SPDX_expressions?

It looks like having spaces around WITH is correct based on the examples in the wiki.

1 new commit added

List both licenses, use spaces

a year ago

nalimilan commented a year ago

OK, thanks, I've updated the PR then.

1 new commit added

Add parens

a year ago

zuul commented a year ago

Build failed. More information on how to proceed and troubleshoot errors available at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zuul-based-ci

check-for-arches : SUCCESS in 56s
rpm-scratch-build : SUCCESS in 2h 21m 14s
rpm-scratch-build-s390x : SUCCESS in 1h 58m 20s (non-voting)
rpm-scratch-build-ppc64le : SUCCESS in 3h 01m 45s (non-voting)
rpm-scratch-build-i686 : SUCCESS in 1h 47m 07s (non-voting)
rpm-scratch-build-aarch64 : SUCCESS in 4h 22m 10s (non-voting)
rpm-linter : FAILURE in 6m 04s (non-voting)
rpm-rpminspect : POST_FAILURE in 22m 17s (non-voting)
check-for-sti-tests : SUCCESS in 30s
check-for-fmf-tests : SUCCESS in 26s
rpm-install-test : SUCCESS in 4m 19s
rpm-tmt-test : FAILURE in 11m 08s
rpm-sti-test : SKIPPED

rebased onto 5b56e21

a year ago

zuul commented a year ago

Build succeeded.

check-for-arches : SUCCESS in 1m 03s
rpm-scratch-build : SUCCESS in 2h 22m 39s
rpm-scratch-build-s390x : SUCCESS in 2h 16m 34s (non-voting)
rpm-scratch-build-ppc64le : SUCCESS in 2h 49m 42s (non-voting)
rpm-scratch-build-i686 : SUCCESS in 1h 55m 20s (non-voting)
rpm-scratch-build-aarch64 : SUCCESS in 4h 09m 24s (non-voting)
rpm-linter : FAILURE in 6m 33s (non-voting)
rpm-rpminspect : POST_FAILURE in 25m 38s (non-voting)
check-for-sti-tests : SUCCESS in 24s
check-for-fmf-tests : SUCCESS in 24s
rpm-install-test : SUCCESS in 4m 00s
rpm-tmt-test : SUCCESS in 13m 33s
rpm-sti-test : SKIPPED

tuliom commented a year ago

@nalimilan I missed this PR when I suggested to update the license field too.
That PR ended up being merged.
I apologize for this mistake.
Considering the facts, I believe this PR is not necessary anymore and I'm closing it.