On 04. 04. 23 17:34, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 10:55 AM Miro Hrončok
<mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> during a package review I came across this License tag (simplified):
>
> License: ((Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause) AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT)
>
> Where "(Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause" is a license of one
"unit" built
> into the RPM and "Apache-2.0 OR MIT" is a license of another
"unit". (Both
> units are built into a single binary if that makes a difference.)
>
> Do I change that to:
>
> License: (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause
>
> Or not?
>
> I know that we are not supposed to calculate "effective license", but in
my
> head they both mean the exact same thing.
I guess this isn't explicitly addressed here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/
We do say:
...
At any rate, I think that's what the rule should be, so in your case,
((Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause) AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT)
should just be represented as
(Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause
That was my understanding/opinion as well.
However, I think something like this:
(Apache-2.0 OR MIT OR Unlicense) AND BSD-3-Clause AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT)
would not "reduce" to
(Apache-2.0 OR MIT OR Unlicense) AND BSD-3-Clause
or
(Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause
because we are stubbornly adhering to the view that it is useful to
reflect all disjunctive license expressions (if only because this was
a convention in the Callaway system).
Same here.
Note: we are making these policies up, since the SPDX spec (rightly)
does not attempt to address any of it and outside of Fedora, uses of
SPDX expressions for project/package license metadata are extremely
primitive and unsophisticated at present, so there are no useful
practices or conventions for Fedora to draw upon.
Understood.
Thanks,
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok