Dne 25. 05. 22 v 8:45 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
> On 5/23/22 19:44, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 12:37 PM Jilayne Lovejoy
>> <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Fedora legal and packaging,
>>>
>>> I'm cross-posting this, as I think it's relevant to both groups.
>>>
>>> The current policy for filling out the license field of the spec
>>> file (as described at
>>>
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidel...
>>> ) states, "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents
>>> of the binary rpm. When in doubt, ask."
>>>
>>> As we consider how to improve documentation related to Fedora
>>> licensing, it would be helpful to hear people's thoughts on the
>>> following:
>>>
>>> 1) how do you (package maintainers) interpret this policy in practice?
>>>
>>> 2) what further information/documentation about this policy would be
>>> helpful?
>>>
>>> 3) should this policy be different, and if so, how?
>>>
>>> 4) any other related thoughts or observations
>>>
>>
>> I generally interpret it to mean the effective license that covers the
>> resulting artifacts shipped in the binary RPM. I think this is fine,
>> but we definitely have a gap in RPM packaging in that we can't declare
>> the license of the Source RPM anywhere. This is particularly kludgy
>> when you have vendored or bundled code.
>
> I seem to have a dim recollection of ability to define source license
> separately being requested at some point years ago, but it never went
> anywhere, for whatever reason.
>
> ...
>
> After rummaging through some dusty archives, turns that discussion
> took place between Spot and myself in August 2007. No wonder the
> recollection was dim. I guess there was never any ticket/bug filed on
> it and the email simply got slowly buried in the sediment.
>
> Feel free to open a ticket at
>
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/ if this is something
> we should look into. Doesn't seem like rocket science to add an
> optional SourceLicense that would be used for the src.rpm license if
> present, or something like that.
>
Sorry for resurrecting old thread. But it was never referred here, that
after all. this was requested and implemented in RPM:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2079
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2117
therefore there is now `SourceLicense` tag supported by RPM 4.19+
available in F40+.
And I wonder, should we update our license guidelines and start to use
the `SourceLicense` tag?
There was an issue several months ago where this was brought up, IIRC.
My thought was that use of `SourceLicense:` could be optional in
addition to populating `License` but wouldn't be encouraged. But did
you mean, should we actually deprecate use of `License` in favor of
`SourceLicense` (with all that would imply: the `SourceLicense` tag
would then consist of an enumeration of licenses covering the entirety
of the source code)? That seems like it would be a pretty radical
change, which is not to suggest that it's a bad idea.
Richard