License of Go/Rust or any statically linked packages

[Vít Ondruch]

Looking for example at git-lfs:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/git-lfs/blob/master/f/git-lfs.spec

I am afraid that the license field is wrong. Since the Go packages are
statically linked, that means also content of all the BR is part of the
binary packages and therefore should include their licenses. This also
applies to Rust and all other statically linked packages.

I believe the guidelines should be amended to handle this scenario and
all the packages fixed appropriately.


Thoughts?


Vít

[Igor Raits]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 13:33 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>  Looking for example at git-lfs:
>  
>  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/git-lfs/blob/master/f/git-lfs.spec
>  
>  I am afraid that the license field is wrong. Since the Go packages
>  are
>  statically linked, that means also content of all the BR is part of
>  the
>  binary packages and therefore should include their licenses. This
>  also
>  applies to Rust and all other statically linked packages. 
I think we already do it fine for Rust, no?

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-ripgrep/blob/master/f/rust-ripgre...
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-bat/blob/master/f/rust-bat.spec#_35
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-starship/blob/master/f/rust-stars...

and so on.

>  
>  I believe the guidelines should be amended to handle this scenario
>  and
>  all the packages fixed appropriately. 
We've also discussed this here:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-rpick/pull-request/1

>  
>  Thoughts? 
I think Pull Request is very welcomed in the packaging guidelines.

>  
>  Vít
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  legal mailing list -- legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave(a)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/[e-mail] 
- -- 
Igor Raits <ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEcwgJ58gsbV5f5dMcEV1auJxcHh4FAl714H4ACgkQEV1auJxc
> Hh78ow//YSYs1uSZul0G4FZY5arc/Rxhsdsne5ENo8rFoltrebwfwHBxjOmfaD+9
> elPQcPb5P0kYljTt3c3+3m0nvpZPVFFycE+ZlHG+cFgQCSwQ8MBR0ggIJPFtPz6G
> 4HC5VBT7m8bmw/EFk5Gx9D+OZ+NYAlIxIMOQXSnUoZCZAe+YdIohhvVGXh3p+Czj
> WxYmFMqG9ECP6joXEiZE4O4pdA1S0wRL3w1AVMZTyqQSwIPqTOWuIcsb8xj6Dg++
> EfR56Z1L8vnbgajH/F6RzJow4CQJt7qaCnl/ncPUFw194W9gyij75HvtudfJLerb
> JoLXCqqa+kTC18RDjEaJTXFPbrticEMSGaHIWDV+KQU4kWAPlM00Qq2ikVPn01AM
> 23G1T40c8WO/H+jiUtRxBIebaC16BGGf8uMavLocCm0PtvzDExXbNKXsgiKZB9N5
> nl1DmeDHtoUpUUFkOCh6lbYfSZaz2no9W+wGgXMTwGYcpq2UYg0G3dY4gWwy1o+v
> AZbpgoSCyPobqmd54qRWKH7XGXbvTla4qWggL/VMU/jzxPRtnfnMkHmSULA57M36
> zDYs8ff6pUorM1qv/3MJ5BruN0y/QOwMq6dXdKItNm7mAEJ+95S+elh7SFOpQx69
> VnwYfBlWX6Fn93Ti1F7MEcouh9HXN+T1YBWpYBniInqLOny7n4s=
> =QPwA
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Igor Raits]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 13:48 +0200, Igor Raits wrote:
>  On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 13:33 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>  > Looking for example at git-lfs:
>  > 
>  > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/git-lfs/blob/master/f/git-lfs.spec
>  > 
>  > I am afraid that the license field is wrong. Since the Go packages
>  > are
>  > statically linked, that means also content of all the BR is part of
>  > the
>  > binary packages and therefore should include their licenses. This
>  > also
>  > applies to Rust and all other statically linked packages.
>  
>  I think we already do it fine for Rust, no?
>  
>  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-ripgrep/blob/master/f/rust-ripgre...
>  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-bat/blob/master/f/rust-bat.spec#_35
>  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-starship/blob/master/f/rust-stars...
>  
>  and so on. 
Forgot to mention that we even have script to generate those:
https://pagure.io/fedora-rust/rust2rpm/blob/master/f/tools/fedora-helper.py

>  
>  > 
>  > I believe the guidelines should be amended to handle this scenario
>  > and
>  > all the packages fixed appropriately.
>  
>  We've also discussed this here:
>  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-rpick/pull-request/1
>  
>  > 
>  > Thoughts?
>  
>  I think Pull Request is very welcomed in the packaging guidelines.
>  
>  > 
>  > Vít
>  > 
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > legal mailing list -- legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  > To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave(a)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/[e-mail] 
-
-- 
Igor Raits <ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEcwgJ58gsbV5f5dMcEV1auJxcHh4FAl714egACgkQEV1auJxc
> Hh6lBQ//UTR0h1YecxlcCLV52LdDYLtCb1YFB1GsSJgg5B7Veq8ACRqNy9QqbWxL
> mtluCHJpCM7dpdH5L4+xzKREI6eJHTSCQIRKopcA4bPy97g/0sRQ8+4xLGKJbh7l
> AEa9VAlkYHyqCDbmc2T+QEwXru7kXTNio14eNxIpwn3mOZpab9SYMlu7H6sHKPy6
> oWJF0HIROFW5vNwwsB6UW7IV044IJ72zYG2LN2tjNGsTFvqR5LTfaJImPPP4vWJT
> 8YJfcFCFdQXnwunj5Y1DJwgSLNBem31MOhS+Vq6E3nXjsTflNVEt4/UPB5HRrJcl
> vYoeaVHcE1Gbn2FUWvXTe9TRdujBpVVT4rgvxPh+cKh9x5FrS4Eg1Jj+WrIgszYn
> NWIrJW0e2iwZZN9P7ZTuefbdjKhKyDvqIghNKt16gcfzQ6L/yYfiKURKBOYiRtmA
> Q+KStJRogH6kwWMWlPlNpRpDr9rCpC5j+F+Jg9IfXFUP10DswN8zXwPsab39nSeA
> e51Ko5YqRPapSCe6gSWYbI1g4ngz4vwxpPw36UTOEiDuHR3BNKZvNeTNB/lzDuoh
> 6DIIXyWfeUmsuhSN6igc6j+CpQtnWtU94ESM6BbfjAnJgNahrY4pPkUQ3XzGU9yR
> ewl/fjyQAIkMNWV3RwMp5aCIypFNJDgRT0RQ9eFmYBqeOGs6/nY=
> =3AC1
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 26. 06. 20 v 13:54 Igor Raits napsal(a):
>  On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 13:48 +0200, Igor Raits wrote:
>  > On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 13:33 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>  >> Looking for example at git-lfs:
>  >>
>  >> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/git-lfs/blob/master/f/git-lfs.spec
>  >>
>  >> I am afraid that the license field is wrong. Since the Go packages
>  >> are
>  >> statically linked, that means also content of all the BR is part of
>  >> the
>  >> binary packages and therefore should include their licenses. This
>  >> also
>  >> applies to Rust and all other statically linked packages.
>
>  > I think we already do it fine for Rust, no?
>
>  >
>  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-ripgrep/blob/master/f/rust-ripgre...
>  >
>  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-bat/blob/master/f/rust-bat.spec#_35
>  >
>  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-starship/blob/master/f/rust-stars...
>
>  > and so on.
>
>  Forgot to mention that we even have script to generate those:
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-rust/rust2rpm/blob/master/f/tools/fedora-helper.py 

Ah, nice. Thx for claficiation.


>  >>
>  >> I believe the guidelines should be amended to handle this scenario
>  >> and
>  >> all the packages fixed appropriately.
>  
But this point still stands IMO.


V.


>  > We've also discussed this here:
>  > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-rpick/pull-request/1
>
>  >>
>  >> Thoughts?
>
>  > I think Pull Request is very welcomed in the packaging guidelines.
>
>  >>
>  >> Vít
>  >>
>  >> _______________________________________________
>  >> legal mailing list -- legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  >> To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave(a)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/[e-mail]
>