[Fedora-packaging] Handling Upstream that has Diverging Licenses in Source Files but not LICENSE file
I'm doing a review for miopen [1][2] and I'm hitting an issue with the license
file(s) that I'm not sure how to handle. I suspect that this isn't a unique
situation so I'm asking here.
The upstream is distributed as MIT but contains a few files which have additional or
different licenses. Two files include BSD-2-Clause, two files include Apache-2.0 and one
is Public Domain. The upstream project includes a LICENSE.txt file which only contains the
MIT license.
As I understand packaging policy, we're only supposed to include license text which is
present upstream. If the package only includes the LICENSE.txt file with the binaries,
that's missing the BSD and Apache licenses.
I'm unclear on how this is supposed to be handled. Can't we just include the text
from the files with non-MIT licenses in a separate file or by appending them to the end of
upstream's LICENSE.txt? We could ask upstream to include the BSD-2-Clause and
Apache-2.0 text in their LICENSE file but this seems like something that's not really
their problem. They're not distributing binaries, they're distributing the
copyright notice with the individual files.
Does anyone have knowledge on how situations like this have been handled in the past?
Thanks,
Tim
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2261201
[2] https://github.com/ROCm/MIOpen