On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 3:23 PM Jiri Kucera <jkucera(a)redhat.com> wrote:
CC'ing Richard Fontana
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jiri Kucera" <jkucera(a)redhat.com>
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 4:15:21 PM
> Subject: [LEGAL] License field not match the content of eigen3-devel?
> I do some investigation of eigen3-devel package and found out that there are
> some files distributed under the Minpack license:
> - /usr/include/eigen3/unsupported/Eigen/src/LevenbergMarquardt/LMcovar.h
> - /usr/include/eigen3/unsupported/Eigen/src/LevenbergMarquardt/LMonestep.h
> - /usr/include/eigen3/unsupported/Eigen/src/LevenbergMarquardt/LMpar.h
> - /usr/include/eigen3/unsupported/Eigen/src/LevenbergMarquardt/LMqrsolv.h
> There is no "minpack" identifier in the License field inside the
> However, Minpack license claims itself to be BSD-like.
> 1. Should minpack be added to the License field or it is covered by the BSD
> license identifier?
First, I think Minpack is an acceptable license for Fedora (it's
similar to the old Apache Software License 1.1 but is somewhat more
permissive). As far as I can tell it is not on the current list of
Fedora "good" licenses
). So I
believe the process is to post something to
Since these files are in the binary RPM I believe the spec file should
reflect that by adding "Minpack" and the file "COPYING.MINPACK"
get installed as well.
Also cc'ing Jilayne Lovejoy who may be interested in this more from an
SPDX perspective - as far as I can tell Minpack is not represented in
the current SPDX list (as currently formulated Apache-1.1 would not be
a match). The perennial topic of whether SPDX-style license
identifiers should be used in Fedora RPM spec files has recently
> 2. Are we really need to ship files in the eigen3-devel packages
> marked as unsupported?
If the answer to that is "no", then I don't think my answers to the
first question would be applicable.