On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 09:19:43AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 21. 03. 21 v 11:52 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
>On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 11:47:17AM +0200, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
>>I am doing my first Fedora package review , for litehtml library.
>>The source tree contains some bundled items that, in violation of
>>original licenses, do not include a copy of the relevant licenses.
>>There are two problem items:
>>1. gumbo-parser is included in source form and only contains link to
>>the correct license in source files and repository README, but
>>license text itself is not included like the license, Apache
>>Software License 2.0, demands.
>This one is easy to fix: just include the license file as another
>Source. It'll then be part of the srpm, even though it's not part of
>the Source0 tarball. Since the upstream *links* to a license, there
>is no risk of confusion about the text, you can even use this exact
>URL for the Source line…
Just FTR, including license file as SOURCE have always been wrong
suggestion, because the review guidelines  states the following:
My interpretation was based on the text in the Licensing Guidelines.
I consider those to be authoritative over the Review Guidelines, which
after all are and must be just a derived checklist of things specified
elsewhere in the guidelines.
MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of
the license(s) for the package must be included in %license.
The authoritative text is unequivocal:
[when the license text is required by the license] either "Include a
copy of what they believe the license text is" or "Choose not to
package that software for Fedora".
>Please note that the guidelines also say that the packager MUST
>contact upstream and ask them to fix the issue .
And this is just SHOULD:
SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it. 
Again, the authoritative text says:
"Packagers who choose to do this should ensure that they have
exhausted all attempts to work with upstream to include the license
text as part of the source code, or at least, to confirm the full
license text explicitly with the upstream, as this minimizes the risk
on the packager."
"It is important to reiterate that in situations where the indicated
license does not imply a requirement that the license be distributed
along with the source/binaries, Fedora packagers are NOT required to
manually include the full license text when it is absent from the
source code. but are still encouraged to point out this issue to
upstream and encourage them to remedy it."
It does NOT say "MUST", but comes very close. Also by saying "NOT
required [in the other case]", it implies that [in this case] it is.
Granted, the licensing guidelines you are referring to might be
"might be"? I don't think there's much wiggle room.
I think the confusion in the Review Guidelines stems from the fact
that we didn't always appreciate that there are some licenses which
require the text to be present, and the lack of the text is a
violation of the license itself. Many of the popular licenses are
*not* like this (in particular various flavours of GPL and CC), so the
Review Guidelines erroneously treat this is a minor issue.