On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 19:51 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 26.09.2007 18:24, Karsten Wade wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 17:01 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > >> Further questions arise from Fedora maintainers reusing/modifying > >> upstream specs and/or specs from other origins (e.g. other distros). > >> They can be covered by other copyrights/licenses (e.g. the GPL). > > Since spec files are specific to RPM packaging, could it be better if > > rpm.org set the standard? It could be a bigger first step toward all > > sources of spec files being license compatible. > > Different projects and contributors might want to put spec files under > different licenses, so I don't like that idea to much. Right, but it's out of your influence. My view on this: * rpmbuild is kind of a compiler. * specs are written in a programming language * specs are rpmbuild's input/sources files, covered by a licensing of their own. That said, I consider * src.rpms to be combined works, combining - "sources", i.e. subject to upstream's licensing/copyright. - specs, being covered by licensing of its own. - modifications to "sources" (e.g. patches). These are required to be covered by a licensing which is compatible to "sources". It they are inlined in specs, the specs also must be covered by a license compatible to "sources" upstream. * binary rpms to be derived works from "sources" upstream and "spec" upstream. => Both licenses must be compatible. > rpm.org on the other hand could guide everyone and provide a "sane > default" maybe. IMO, this would be as questionable as a text processor writing a guide-line on text documents or a compiler doing the same on programs/libraries. Setting a "default" or letting using "rpm.org's rpmbuild" imply a license on specs would be fairly silly and counterproductive, IMO. Instead, I'd prefer if *.specs were considered source files as any other source files, i.e. "intellectual property" of their authors with all common legal strings attached to it. May-be it would be helpful, if Fedora's EULA was added a sentence stating a default license. Say, something similar to "unless otherwise stated, Fedora *.specs are considered to be licensed <to be specified>". Ralf _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
