On 05/24/2010 09:22 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: >> On 05/14/2010 03:27 PM, David Cornette wrote: >>> However, it is not included in the source distribution of autotalent, and the >>> ownership of mayer_fft.c seems less than clear to me. Can autotalent be >>> packaged as is? If it can be packaged, do we need to include the Pure Data >>> license file as a second source file in order to comply with that license? Or >>> does "If it were up to me, I'd say go do whatever you want with it" mean we >>> can do whatever we want with it? >> >> I think that autotalent is fine to be packaged as is, with >> >> License: GPLv2+ and BSD >> >> I would strongly recommend that you include the Pure Data license file, >> and, if upstream is alive, ask them to do so (and to properly note the >> license in the mayer_fft* files). >> > > Hi, I have some general questions. What you say above is in direct > conflict with the review guideline in [1] which says: > "If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the > license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the > license(s) for the package must be included in %doc." Not really, think of it like this: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing in the text of the license(s) for the package _MUST_ be included in %doc. If it does not, and you have sufficient evidence of licensing for a source file, _and_ that source file does not contain a copy of the license text within itself _and_ the license requires that the license text be distributed (for example, BSD does this), you MUST include a copy of that license text. (You should try to get upstream to fix these sorts of situations, as technically, they are also in violation of such licensing terms.) In all other situations, you are not required to include separate copies of license texts with the Fedora package, however, maintainers may do so at their own discretion. > The questions are, am I interpreting the guideline wrong? Or are we > making an exception for this package? If yes, what grants an exception > and is this documented? This is somewhat of an exception, because the BSD license text requires it. Normally, we wouldn't hit this, because the source file would contain the BSD license text within itself, and we wouldn't need to include a separate copy, but in this case, the BSD license doesn't appear anywhere within the autotalent source tarball, but we know mayer_fft.c is BSD. If the above wording is clear, I'll add it to the Licensing#FAQ. ~spot _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
