Hi,
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
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ for
AppStream metainfo files. Some such package examples are
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/liberation-fonts/
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/langpacks/
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/firefox/
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.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/NetworkManager-openvpn/-/blob/master/appda...
https://github.com/virt-manager/virt-manager/blob/master/data/virt-manage...
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?
Regards,
Parag.