There are some packages where packager ships their own Source: files which
are AppStream metainfo xml files under "CC0" license but do not list it in
the package license tag. We have a guidelines page
AppStream metainfo files. Some such package examples are
There are other 2 examples where upstream itself provides xml files in CC0
license but it is also not listed in its package license tag.
My question is these xml files are in "CC0" license and the package has its
own license already in the SPEC file. Should SPEC file License: tag add
"and CC0" for those packages? I do not remember why AppStream xml file's
license was not considered in SPEC file License: tag.
Anyone knows why listing "CC0" is not needed?