On August 10, 2022 4:35:10 PM UTC, Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com wrote:
With the move to SPDX license nomenclature I'm starting to reevaluate how I review licenses during a package review.
I'm working on a review and it looks like some of the documentation, i.e. stuff that would go in %doc has a specific license. I don't know if this is uncommon or if I just hadn't noticed before, but does this actually impact the package licensing?
If the %doc part belongs to the main package, then I'd just combine all licenses via AND including the license of the documentation. If it's a separate package, the use the doc license for the -doc subpackage (provided that rpm supports this). But IANAL applies as usual.
In general, I would say that the package license should be based on what's actually in the resultant package (not build system stuff like autotools, random scripts, etc). That seems pretty straightforward, but documentation?
Thanks, Richard