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:
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?
Vít
- Panu -
_______________________________________________
packaging mailing list -- packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproje...
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure