On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 09:36 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > Simple policy decision, then, designed to deal with unlicensed, and > therefore presumably public domain, spec files: "If you take a spec file > from someone else, be sure that attribution is included. If it is *not* > included, include the following text: 'based on a specfile by <foo> at the > <bar> project.' If you don't do this, you're a schmuck, and the punishment > is to (a) fix it immediately, and (b) wear the Hat of Schmuck." And yes, > put it in the review process. > > As far as actual licensing goes, I still think it's a matter for Spot. > Attribution is pretty much implicit in every licensing scheme anywhere > anyway. > > --g > > (And no, I don't have a Hat of Schmuck handy. But I might be able to fit > one in my budget.) You guys give me all the fun stuff to deal with when I come back from vacation. :) The problems: 1. Spec files don't have binary/source forms. It's more like a shell script. We'd need to be careful to use a license that reflects this. 2. The license of the spec file does NOT have any bearing on the bits inside the RPM. 3. It is NEVER safe to assume that because something is unlicensed that it is Public Domain. You have to explicitly put things into the Public Domain by failing to Copyright the work within 5 years of publication (unless you're the US Government, for which all works are automatically PD). Very very very little software is in the Public Domain. IMHO, no existing license is a good fit for spec files. If I was to work up something especially for spec files, I would use something like this: ***** # Copyright (C) 2007, Red Hat, Inc. # # This package specification is provided 'as-is', without any express or # implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any # damages arising from the use of this specification. # # Permission is granted to anyone to use this specification for any purpose, # including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it # freely, subject to the following restrictions: # # 1. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be # misrepresented as being the original specification. # 2. This notice may not be removed or altered from any specification. # 3. This license only applies to the package specification, and does # not have any bearing on any files included within packages # generated from this specification. ***** ~spot _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
