Could someone check my work here:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/orion/rpms/ccache/tree/unbundle
If I need to list the remaining bundled code, I think I have:
# See LICENSE.adoc for licenses of bundled codes # blake3 is Apache-2.0 # minitrace.h is MIT # span.hpp is BSL-1.0 # url.cpp/hpp is MIT License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND Apache-2.0 AND BSL-1.0 AND MIT
Thank you!
Dne 06. 02. 24 v 5:52 Orion Poplawski napsal(a):
Could someone check my work here:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/orion/rpms/ccache/tree/unbundle
If I need to list the remaining bundled code, I think I have:
# See LICENSE.adoc for licenses of bundled codes # blake3 is Apache-2.0 # minitrace.h is MIT # span.hpp is BSL-1.0 # url.cpp/hpp is MIT License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND Apache-2.0 AND BSL-1.0 AND MIT
Thank you!
I see few more:
http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spdx-reports/ccache
On 2/6/24 02:06, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 06. 02. 24 v 5:52 Orion Poplawski napsal(a):
Could someone check my work here:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/orion/rpms/ccache/tree/unbundle
If I need to list the remaining bundled code, I think I have:
# See LICENSE.adoc for licenses of bundled codes # blake3 is Apache-2.0 # minitrace.h is MIT # span.hpp is BSL-1.0 # url.cpp/hpp is MIT License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND Apache-2.0 AND BSL-1.0 AND MIT
Thank you!
I see few more:
Right, thanks for that. But the branch I posted has had some work unbundling a number of items.
But mainly I was looking for confirmation that I do need to list all of the licenses of all of the third_party code.
I think https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline... could be clearer on this point.
On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 10:02 AM Orion Poplawski orion@nwra.com wrote:
But mainly I was looking for confirmation that I do need to list all of the licenses of all of the third_party code.
I think https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline... could be clearer on this point.
That page is somewhat out of date relative to the legal documentation. The page https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/ was completely rewritten a few months ago though is still incomplete.
Richard
On 2/7/24 8:22 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 10:02 AM Orion Poplawski orion@nwra.com wrote:
But mainly I was looking for confirmation that I do need to list all of the licenses of all of the third_party code.
I think https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline... could be clearer on this point.
To be clear - this page was updated when we adopted SPDX identifiers and refers to the page that Richard mentions below for more details.
but yes, we are due for a review/refresh of all the licensing documentation now that some time has passed. On Richard and my to-do list!
That page is somewhat out of date relative to the legal documentation. The page https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/ was completely rewritten a few months ago though is still incomplete.
Richard
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
On Wednesday, 07 February 2024 at 16:02, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 2/6/24 02:06, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 06. 02. 24 v 5:52 Orion Poplawski napsal(a):
Could someone check my work here:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/orion/rpms/ccache/tree/unbundle
If I need to list the remaining bundled code, I think I have:
# See LICENSE.adoc for licenses of bundled codes # blake3 is Apache-2.0 # minitrace.h is MIT # span.hpp is BSL-1.0 # url.cpp/hpp is MIT License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND Apache-2.0 AND BSL-1.0 AND MIT
Thank you!
I see few more:
Right, thanks for that. But the branch I posted has had some work unbundling a number of items.
But mainly I was looking for confirmation that I do need to list all of the licenses of all of the third_party code.
I think https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline... could be clearer on this point.
One way of finding out which source files end up in the binary package is inspecting the corresponding -debugsource package. You could even install/extract its contents and run licensecheck on that tree.
Regards, Dominik
Hi,
On Thu, 2024-02-08 at 10:43 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
Right, thanks for that. But the branch I posted has had some work unbundling a number of items.
But mainly I was looking for confirmation that I do need to list all of the licenses of all of the third_party code.
I think https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline... could be clearer on this point.
One way of finding out which source files end up in the binary package is inspecting the corresponding -debugsource package. You could even install/extract its contents and run licensecheck on that tree.
Note that might both miss any sources embedded through build- dependencies and might have too many sources if you are using license tags for the binaries in each sub-packages since it bundles all sources for all binaries in all sub-packages. Using some elfutils tools you could get a more exact list using something like:
$ dnf install <sub-package> $ dnf builddep <sub-package> $ dnf debuginfo-install <sub-package>
$ for i in `rpm -ql <sub-package>`; \ do eu-elfclassify --elf --file $i; \ if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then eu-srcfiles --exec $i; fi; done | sort -u \ | xargs licensecheck --shortname-scheme spdx | cut -f2- -d: \ | sort -u | sed -z -e 's/\n / AND /g'
(A newer, not yet released, version of eu-srcfiles should also be able to create a zip file of all the sources gotten through debuginfod.fedoraproject.org, so you don't need to install the builddep and debuginfo locally.)
Cheers,
Mark