https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2191661
--- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net> ---
Thank you for the review!
(In reply to Sandro from comment #1)
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
=> The LICENSE file is for CC-BY-4.0. On GitHub the commit for the LICENSE
file states:
"Licensing: CC-BY-4.0 for text, Apache2 for code". I'm not sure what
"text"
the CC-BY-4.0
license applies to, but the license text for Apache-2.0 appears no to be
included.
Upstream probably needs to include the Apache-2.0 text in the LICENSE file
as well.
So, if you look at
https://github.com/bids-standard/stats-models, you’ll see a
top-level LICENSE file that is CC-BY-4.0, and a README.md that says:
This repository is intended to be the authoritative reference
for the BIDS Stats Models specification. It consists of two parts:
1. bsmschema, a Pydantic description of the BIDS Stats Models
files, which can be used as a schema validator or generate
JSON schema for independent validation.
2. specification, a JupyterBook website that includes more human
readable introductions and explanations, as well as a
reference document for bsmschema.
In this context, it seems clear that the “text” that is CC-BY-4.0 is meant to
be the contents of specification/, and the “code” is meant to be the contents
of bsmschema/.
Since the Python package doesn’t need anything from specification/, I package
from the PyPI sdist, which only contains files from bsmschema/. Thus, if you
look at the top-level LICENSE file in the source archive, you’ll find it is
actually
https://github.com/bids-standard/stats-models/blob/0.1.0/bsmschema/LICENSE,
which is the Apache-2.0 license text. Since this sdist pretty clearly contains
only “code,” I think it’s safe to say that CC-BY-4.0 does not apply.
Furthermore, you can verify that pyproject-rpm-macros does handle the license
file properly:
$ rpm -qL -p
review-python-bsmschema/results/python3-bsmschema-0.1.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/bsmschema-0.1.0.dist-info/licenses/LICENSE
...and inspection of its contents confirms it is the Apache-2.0 text.
Let me know if you find any discrepancies in the above.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2191661