On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 10:07 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 3:53 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> I'm also wondering where the "required to document source licensing for
> bundled stuff" is documented? Can you point to that?
>
It was something we were told to do years ago for Rust/Go stuff. I'm
not sure I can find a specific reference for it. I have mentioned it
before though[1].
[1]:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.o...
Side note: We actually worked around the problem you're discussing
with Rust packaging.
- source package name: rust-%{crate}
- built packages (containing source code): rust-%{crate}-devel etc.
- built packages (containing binaries): %{crate} (usually)
- there is no built package with the name rust-%{crate}
So while the main "License" tag from the rust-%{crate} source package
(which can be generated from upstream's SPDX metadata) is
automatically inherited by all subpackages, the subpackage that
actually contains the binaries can have a different "License" tag
(i.e. one that takes all statically linked content into account),
because its name is different than the name of the source package.
Fabio