On Sat, Jan 01, 2022 at 11:11:47AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
ipxe.spec
...
Testing rpm-specs/ipxe.spec No terminal defined for 'w' at line 1 col 8
GPLv2 with additional permissions and BSD ^
Expecting: {'AND', 'OR'}
The license does appear to be accurate in the sense that it reflects the somewhat unusual license of iPXE. Specifically iPXE permits distributing unmodified binaries without source if they are "built from publicly available source code" but without imposing the usual GPL obligation of the distributor having to provide source. (None of this applies to Fedora of course since we do always provide source.)
Also it should be GPLv2+ not GPLv2. I cannot see anywhere where the source limits itself to GPLv2 only.
The situation seems a bit similar to OCaml packages where we often use "LGPLv2+ with exceptions". OCaml uses LGPLv2+ but grants additional permissions to do with not requiring distributors to comply with some of the obligations in clause 2 of the LGPLv2.
So maybe the iPXE license should be:
License: GPLv2+ with exceptions and BSD
I didn't change it.
Rich.