Licence tag in spec files for final binaries or initial source code?

[Felix Schwarz]

I have a question regarding license tags in spec files for software under
multiple licenses (bundled libraries):
- The main software is licensed under a 3-clause BSD.
- The software bundles a library under ASL 2 in subfolder /foo

As far as I know the correct license tag for the Fedora package is
License:        BSD and ASL 2.0

If I do
  rm -rf <...>/foo
in %prep the ASL-licensed code is never executed, compiled and not present in
the final binary. Can I change the license tag to "BSD" in that case?

(I could also clean the source code before importing it for Fedora but I like
using unmodified upstream archives.)

Felix

[Yaakov Selkowitz]

On Sun, 2019-05-19 at 17:15 +0200, Felix Schwarz wrote:
>  I have a question regarding license tags in spec files for software
> under
>  multiple licenses (bundled libraries):
>  - The main software is licensed under a 3-clause BSD.
>  - The software bundles a library under ASL 2 in subfolder /foo
>  
>  As far as I know the correct license tag for the Fedora package is
>  License:        BSD and ASL 2.0
>  
>  If I do
>    rm -rf <...>/foo
>  in %prep the ASL-licensed code is never executed, compiled and not present in
>  the final binary. Can I change the license tag to "BSD" in that case? 
Based on your example, yes:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidel...

"The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the
*binary* rpm."

>  (I could also clean the source code before importing it for Fedora
> but I like
>  using unmodified upstream archives.) 
That is only necessary when the sources contain legally encumbered
code, which doesn't sound like the case here.

-- 
Yaakov Selkowitz
Senior Software Engineer - Platform Enablement
Red Hat, Inc.

[Felix Schwarz]

Am 19.05.19 um 17:23 schrieb Yaakov Selkowitz:
>  Based on your example, yes:
>  
>  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidel...
>  
>  "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the
>  *binary* rpm." 
Thank you - somehow I missed that part.

Felix

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 11:26 AM Felix Schwarz
<fschwarz(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  Am 19.05.19 um 17:23 schrieb Yaakov Selkowitz:
>  > Based on your example, yes:
>  >
>  > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidel...
>  >
>  > "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the
>  > *binary* rpm."
>
>  Thank you - somehow I missed that part.
>
>  Felix 
Shouldn't that depend on the license? The source code is normally
contained in the SRPM. Would it make sense to segregate that source
code into a different package with a distinct license, if possible?

[Rex Dieter]

Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

> > > "The License: field refers to the licenses of the
> contents of the
> > > *binary* rpm."
> >
> > Thank you - somehow I missed that part.
> >
> > Felix
>  
>  Shouldn't that depend on the license? The source code is normally
>  contained in the SRPM. Would it make sense to segregate that source
>  code into a different package with a distinct license, if possible? 
No (imo, that would over-complicate things for little to no gain).

-- Rex