On August 10, 2022 4:35:10 PM UTC, Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)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