[Fedora-packaging] [Fedora-legal-list] questions about license file migration

[Tom Callaway]

On 03/02/2015 03:26 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
>>> 2: When a package has a list of authors separate from the license file,
>>> > > should that list also be tagged as a license file, or is it considered
>>> > > regular documentation? It seems to me that *who* gives out a license is
>>> > > important information that belongs together with the license.  
>> > 
>> > With a big "I'm not Fedora Legal" disclaimer, I think the answer here
>> > is really... it depends.
>> > 
>> > The intent here is primarily to make it possible to exclude bulky
>> > documentation for containers and other space-constrained installations
>> > while keeping legally-required license statements in place. Authorship
>> > files may or may not be part of that.
> Then I suppose I should ask Fedora Legal, so I'm CCing the legal list.
> 
> If it were a legal requirement, then I suppose it would also apply when
> the author's name is written in a README file together with a lot of
> other information.
> 
> I don't remember seeing any explicit requirement to include a separate
> file with a list of authors. It just feels weird to have a license
> without a licensor. There are some licenses that contain phrases like
> "the above copyright notice", but in those cases it's in the same file.

I've never seen a license which required the inclusion of the copyright
holders that didn't include those copyright holders in the license text.

We tag the license text as %license to ensure that it always gets
installed as part of the transaction, even when other docs are excluded.
I don't foresee any situation in which a file containing a list of
copyright holders that is distinct and separate from the file containing
the license text (pause to catch my breath) would be necessary to treat
as %license. %doc should be sufficient there.

That said, if you end up in a situation where you (the packager) feels
strongly that the upstream separation of copyright holders and license
text would somehow cause the license text to be incomplete, feel free to
either bring those specifics to this email list, or tag them both as
%license and explain it in a comment in the spec file.

~tom

==
Red Hat
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: tcallawa.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 4 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20150302/810f254c/attachment.vcf>