AppStream metainfo license in package license

[Parag Nemade <panemade@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
There are some packages where packager ships their own Source: files which are AppStream metainfo xml files under "CC0" license but do not list it in the package license tag. We have a guidelines page https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ for AppStream metainfo files. Some such package examples are
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/liberation-fonts/
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/langpacks/
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/firefox/

There are other 2 examples where upstream itself provides xml files in CC0 license but it is also not listed in its package license tag.

https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/NetworkManager-openvpn/-/blob/master/appdata/network-manager-openvpn.metainfo.xml.in

https://github.com/virt-manager/virt-manager/blob/master/data/virt-manager.appdata.xml.in

My question is these xml files are in "CC0" license and the package has its own license already in the SPEC file. Should SPEC file License: tag add "and CC0" for those packages? I do not remember why AppStream xml file's license was not considered in SPEC file License: tag.

Anyone knows why listing "CC0" is not needed?

Regards,
Parag.

_______________________________________________
legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure