Hi,
I'm currently updating brewtarget [0] which I recently adopted.
For a handful of PNG files upstream has the following in their COPYRIGHT file: License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 or LGPL-3.0 [1].
The text of the CC license is in the file, however the text of the LGPL license is not, nor is it shipped separately. Does upstream need to ship the text of the LGPL license or does it imply the PNG files are shipped under the CC license?
In the specfile I put 'CC-BY-SA-3.0 OR LGPL-3.0-only' to cover both. Would that imply I have to add the LGPL license text to the package myself?
[0] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gui1ty/reviews/build/4948105/ [1] https://github.com/Brewtarget/brewtarget/blob/42359a23715a6275aeca2fb2745671...
Cheers,
Would that imply I have to add the LGPL license text to the package myself?
The packaging guidelines state that the desired course of action is to contact upstream and ask them to provide the licence text. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline...
For what it's worth, the typical licence header for LGPL includes this bit:
You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License along with this program. If not, see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/.
So personally, I'd start by submitting an issue upstream and asking for clarification.
A.FI.
On 17-10-2022 12:19, Artur Frenszek-Iwicki wrote:
Would that imply I have to add the LGPL license text to the package myself?
The packaging guidelines state that the desired course of action is to contact upstream and ask them to provide the licence text. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline...
Thanks. I already opened an issue upstream [0]. Just wanted to be sure regarding dual licenses.
On 17-10-2022 12:24, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
If the COPYRIGHT file explicitly stated the PNG files are dual licensed, then (in the absence of any more explicit statement elsewhere in the source tree) the COPYRIGHT file statement is considered binding, despite the fact they forgot to ship the actual LGPL license file text. Upstream should be encouraged to ship the license text to make this more clear though.
Thanks. Upstream is quite responsive. I will provide a patch to include the missing license text.
[0] https://github.com/Brewtarget/brewtarget/issues/664
-- Sandro
On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 12:10:26PM +0200, Sandro wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently updating brewtarget [0] which I recently adopted.
For a handful of PNG files upstream has the following in their COPYRIGHT file: License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 or LGPL-3.0 [1].
The text of the CC license is in the file, however the text of the LGPL license is not, nor is it shipped separately. Does upstream need to ship the text of the LGPL license or does it imply the PNG files are shipped under the CC license?
If the COPYRIGHT file explicitly stated the PNG files are dual licensed, then (in the absence of any more explicit statement elsewhere in the source tree) the COPYRIGHT file statement is considered binding, despite the fact they forgot to ship the actual LGPL license file text. Upstream should be encouraged to ship the license text to make this more clear though.
With regards, Daniel