Licensing of the bundled libraries

[Michal Schorm]

Hello,

Q:
Is it needed to explicitly list (or pack) license (files) of a library
that a package bundles? [1]
And if yes, what's the right way to do so?

The built package only contain 1 binary (and it's manpage and license
file). In this case - when no sources are packed - I'd understand that
it is sufficient to list and pack only the single license of the
resulting project.
Is that correct?

--

The package is 'pgloader' and it is now on a review to enter Fedora. [2]

--

[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging...

[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748233

--

Michal Schorm
Software Engineer
Core Services - Databases Team
Red Hat

--

[Fedora-legal-list] Licensing of the bundled libraries

[Petr Pisar]

On 2019-09-18, Michal Schorm <mschorm(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Is it needed to explicitly list (or pack) license (files) of a
> library
>  that a package bundles? [1] 
If the bundled library code is part of the binary package, then yes, you
need to list and to package the license.

>  And if yes, what's the right way to do so?
>  
The same as for a nonbundled code. There is no distinction whether the
code is original or borrowed from a different upstream.

-- Petr

[Rex Dieter]

Michal Schorm wrote:

>  Hello,
>  
>  Q:
>  Is it needed to explicitly list (or pack) license (files) of a library
>  that a package bundles? [1]
>  And if yes, what's the right way to do so?
>  
>  The built package only contain 1 binary (and it's manpage and license
>  file). In this case - when no sources are packed - I'd understand that
>  it is sufficient to list and pack only the single license of the
>  resulting project.
>  Is that correct? 
I think this faq should cover it:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license...

In short, you have the option of either tracking the single 
aggregate/combined-work (effective) license, or listing licenses of 
individual components.

-- Rex