On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 1:58 PM Mattia Verga mattia.verga@proton.me wrote:
Hello, I've started the package process for Xephem, an astronomy ephemeris program, but I've found that some headers and the license file of a bundled (*) library still report the old FSF address. I've asked upstream to update the address with a patch [1], but, indeed, they've pointed me to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address where it's said that the license file itself should not be patched. How should I interpret that statement? Should I leave the old address in the license and update only the headers, or should I replace the LICENSE file with an updated version from FSF (which, I suppose, it will result in the same patch)? Is it fine to replace the license file of a bundled (*) library?
It's pretty unimportant. There are tons of projects using copies of the GPL (GPLv2, anyway) with old FSF addresses. I am not sure why rpmlint bothers to flag this as an error.
The likelihood that someone would try to contact the FSF by using an outdated postal mail address based on what they saw in a LICENSE or COPYING file installed by an RPM seems pretty small, to the extent that's the basis for the concern.
Richard
(*) the bundled library is not available anywhere else, AFAIK, so it doesn't make sense to unbundle it.
Mattia
[1] https://github.com/XEphem/XEphem/pull/57 _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue