LegalDB report should use license definitions acceptable by obs-service-format_spec_file

[lkocman]

Hello

this is an example copy-paste, where rather than GPL-2.0+ we should use GPL-2.0-or-later and similar.

It has happened to me a few times, that we've accepted changes to devel project, however, they failed to build in Factory where we have strict rpmlint checking. I can't recall what the license was, but the mistake was that I did copy paste the license text from Cavil and didn't cross-check against https://github.com/openSUSE/obs-service-format_spec_file/blob/master/licenses_changes.txt which I newly do since this issue occurred..
So, could we only use licenses and exceptions that are acceptable/listed by obs-service-format_spec_file?
GPL-2.0+ OR MIT: [1 files] ...
GPL-2.0+ WITH Autoconf-exception-3.0: ...
GPL-2.0+ WITH Libtool-exception: ...
GPL-3.0+ WITH Autoconf-Exception-3.0 ...

I understand that that might be challenging as I've seen a report which was referencing an older version of license than we had in the obs-service-format_spec_file. Perhaps such exceptions could be colorized or so, to warn the reviewer.

[lkocman]

I believe that our SUSE-* licenses are not being displayed for cases like GPL-2.0 with linking exception or so.

[kraih]

SUSE-* licenses are no longer considered valid SPDX identifiers by Cavil and will generate a warning.