On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 1:15 AM Ben Cotton <bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 4:21 AM Parag Nemade <panemade@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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?
>
You certainly *can* add it. There's a bit of a philosophical and
practical question about how detailed the license field should be. In
general, for single files in a larger package that have a
less...complex? obligation-imposing? license, it's okay if the
package's license field doesn't include it. However, considering that
the main consumer of this field probably is either tooling or
downstreams looking to modify the package, "when in doubt, add it" is
a good approach.
Thank you Ben for your reply here. I understand this now.
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
