Dne 25. 03. 24 v 14:26 Richard Fontana napsal(a):
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 9:40 AM Vít Ondruch
<vondruch(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Dne 25. 05. 22 v 8:45 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
>> On 5/23/22 19:44, Neal Gompa wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 12:37 PM Jilayne Lovejoy
>>> <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Fedora legal and packaging,
>>>>
>>>> I'm cross-posting this, as I think it's relevant to both
groups.
>>>>
>>>> The current policy for filling out the license field of the spec
>>>> file (as described at
>>>>
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidel...
>>>> ) states, "The License: field refers to the licenses of the
contents
>>>> of the binary rpm. When in doubt, ask."
>>>>
>>>> As we consider how to improve documentation related to Fedora
>>>> licensing, it would be helpful to hear people's thoughts on the
>>>> following:
>>>>
>>>> 1) how do you (package maintainers) interpret this policy in practice?
>>>>
>>>> 2) what further information/documentation about this policy would be
>>>> helpful?
>>>>
>>>> 3) should this policy be different, and if so, how?
>>>>
>>>> 4) any other related thoughts or observations
>>>>
>>> I generally interpret it to mean the effective license that covers the
>>> resulting artifacts shipped in the binary RPM. I think this is fine,
>>> but we definitely have a gap in RPM packaging in that we can't declare
>>> the license of the Source RPM anywhere. This is particularly kludgy
>>> when you have vendored or bundled code.
>> I seem to have a dim recollection of ability to define source license
>> separately being requested at some point years ago, but it never went
>> anywhere, for whatever reason.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> After rummaging through some dusty archives, turns that discussion
>> took place between Spot and myself in August 2007. No wonder the
>> recollection was dim. I guess there was never any ticket/bug filed on
>> it and the email simply got slowly buried in the sediment.
>>
>> Feel free to open a ticket at
>>
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/ if this is something
>> we should look into. Doesn't seem like rocket science to add an
>> optional SourceLicense that would be used for the src.rpm license if
>> present, or something like that.
>>
> Sorry for resurrecting old thread. But it was never referred here, that
> after all. this was requested and implemented in RPM:
>
>
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2079
>
>
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2117
>
> therefore there is now `SourceLicense` tag supported by RPM 4.19+
> available in F40+.
>
> And I wonder, should we update our license guidelines and start to use
> the `SourceLicense` tag?
There was an issue several months ago where this was brought up, IIRC.
My thought was that use of `SourceLicense:` could be optional in
addition to populating `License` but wouldn't be encouraged. But did
you mean, should we actually deprecate use of `License` in favor of
`SourceLicense` (with all that would imply: the `SourceLicense` tag
would then consist of an enumeration of licenses covering the entirety
of the source code)? That seems like it would be a pretty radical
change, which is not to suggest that it's a bad idea.
My thinking is that we redistribute SRPM and therefore the
`SourceLicense:` would be ideal to cover the content of SRPM.
But since you also mentioned deprecating `License` field, it sounds
radical, but after all, it would probably make my life easier. I am
asking because currently, I am looking at:
Presumably, this code is used just sometimes on some platforms. Now how
am I supposed to know when it happens?
OTOH if we deprecated the `License` tag, then we could keep using it in
the `SourceLicense` meaning, right? We went full circle here :)
Vít
Richard
--
_______________________________________________
packaging mailing list -- packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-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/packaging@lists.fedoraproje...
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue