https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179161
--- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- (In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #2)
Taking for review.
Two things stand out to me here. First, the licensing:
# (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause # 0BSD OR MIT OR Apache-2.0 # Apache-2.0 # Apache-2.0 OR BSL-1.0 # Apache-2.0 OR MIT # MIT # MIT OR Apache-2.0 # MIT OR Apache-2.0 OR Zlib # MIT OR Zlib OR Apache-2.0 # Unlicense OR MIT # Zlib OR Apache-2.0 OR MIT License: Apache-2.0 AND BSD-3-Clause AND MIT
My understanding of the new licensing guidelines is that this is not how we are supposed to fill out the License: field. The license field is supposed to be a simple conjunction of all the sub-licenses involved and should not contain further simplifications the way you've done here. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/ #_no_effective_license_analysis and the rest of the page.
This should be License: ((Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause) AND (0BSD OR MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND Apache-2.0 AND (Apache-2.0 OR BSL-1.0) AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND MIT AND (MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND (MIT OR Apache-2.0 OR Zlib) AND (MIT OR Zlib OR Apache-2.0) AND (Unlicense OR MIT) AND (Zlib OR Apache-2.0 OR MIT)
Not really. This is not documented yet, but "(A OR B)" and ("B OR A") are equivalent, so at least those can be deduplicated.
See also recent discussion on the legal list, https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/ thread/F4MYD7U6D2ROAL3CAOHSYDL3H6TPWZOT/
Yes, I have followed this discussion. However, at least "(Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause" AND "(Apache-2.0 OR MIT)" are idempotent and can be reduced to "(Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause". The "AND" operator is associative (i.e. "(A AND B) AND C" is the same as "A AND (B AND C)" and hence can be simplified to "A AND B AND C" (and here, A and C are identical, so one of them can be dropped).
There was also this:
""" because we are stubbornly adhering to the view that it is useful to reflect all disjunctive license expressions (if only because this was a convention in the Callaway system). """
Which sounds like there's not a logical basis to this guidance at all :) Anyway, I can yeet the complete string into the License tag. Not sure if that helps anybody, but oh well.
Secondly, I noticed that the gstreamer plugin binary package is called 'gst-plugin-reqwest'. Existing gstreamer plugins in Fedora use the 'gstreamer1-plugin(s)-$plugin' pattern and I think it would make sense to continue with this here and call the subpackage 'gstreamer1-plugin-reqwest'.
I disagree. This is against the Naming Guidelines, and there is no documented exception for GStreamer plugins: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_addon_pac...
I can add "Provides: gstreamer1-plugin-reqwest" to the "gst-plugin-reqwest" subpackage to make it easier to find for users, but I would prefer to have the name of the package match the upstream project. (There's also already the "gst-devtools" and "gst-editing-services" packages, so it wouldn't be the first package that follows this pattern).