On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:59:55PM +0200, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > On 09/22/2015 11:46 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > > Or you could say something like "Spec files adapted from the Fedora > > Project. Licensed under the MIT license". > > Wouldn't that be violation of the license? If I understand correctly, > any distribution containing code licensed under MIT license must contain > full copy of the license text, not just reference. No (I am assuming the spec files in question here do not contain the text of the MIT license, and that we have the usual case where there is no explicit license covering the spec file). The applicability of the MIT license is a consequence of the FPCA. Given that the MIT license does say: ... subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. it's reasonable to ask what that means where there is no notice. The FPCA addresses this: You consent to having Fedora provide reasonable notice of Your licensing of Your Contribution under the Current Default License ... in a manner determined by Fedora. I consider the information in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#License_of_Fedora_SPEC_Files (the wiki page is referenced in fedora-release's Fedora-Legal-README.txt) to be "reasonable notice". If a contributor wants more than that the contributor can put a license notice in the spec file. _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
