Hi, There are some packages where packager ships their own Source: files which are AppStream metainfo xml files under "CC0" license but do not list it in the package license tag. We have a guidelines page https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ for AppStream metainfo files. Some such package examples are https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/liberation-fonts/ https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/langpacks/ https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/firefox/
There are other 2 examples where upstream itself provides xml files in CC0 license but it is also not listed in its package license tag. https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/NetworkManager-openvpn/-/blob/master/appdata/... https://github.com/virt-manager/virt-manager/blob/master/data/virt-manager.a...
My question is these xml files are in "CC0" license and the package has its own license already in the SPEC file. Should SPEC file License: tag add "and CC0" for those packages? I do not remember why AppStream xml file's license was not considered in SPEC file License: tag.
Anyone knows why listing "CC0" is not needed?
Regards, Parag.
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 4:21 AM Parag Nemade panemade@gmail.com wrote:
My question is these xml files are in "CC0" license and the package has its own license already in the SPEC file. Should SPEC file License: tag add "and CC0" for those packages? I do not remember why AppStream xml file's license was not considered in SPEC file License: tag.
Anyone knows why listing "CC0" is not needed?
You certainly *can* add it. There's a bit of a philosophical and practical question about how detailed the license field should be. In general, for single files in a larger package that have a less...complex? obligation-imposing? license, it's okay if the package's license field doesn't include it. However, considering that the main consumer of this field probably is either tooling or downstreams looking to modify the package, "when in doubt, add it" is a good approach.
-- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Fedora Program Manager Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 1:15 AM Ben Cotton bcotton@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 4:21 AM Parag Nemade panemade@gmail.com wrote:
My question is these xml files are in "CC0" license and the package has
its own license already in the SPEC file. Should SPEC file License: tag add "and CC0" for those packages? I do not remember why AppStream xml file's license was not considered in SPEC file License: tag.
Anyone knows why listing "CC0" is not needed?
You certainly *can* add it. There's a bit of a philosophical and practical question about how detailed the license field should be. In general, for single files in a larger package that have a less...complex? obligation-imposing? license, it's okay if the package's license field doesn't include it. However, considering that the main consumer of this field probably is either tooling or downstreams looking to modify the package, "when in doubt, add it" is a good approach.
Thank you Ben for your reply here. I understand this now.
Regards, Parag
-
Ben Cotton -
Parag Nemade