Re: license of the binary policy

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 3:53 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/23/22 1:30 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> > On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 2:03 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 1:03 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 5/23/22 10:44 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 12:37 PM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Fedora legal and packaging,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm cross-posting this, as I think it's relevant to both groups.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The current policy for filling out the license field of the spec file (as described at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/ ) states, "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary rpm. When in doubt, ask."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As we consider how to improve documentation related to Fedora licensing, it would be helpful to hear people's thoughts on the following:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1) how do you (package maintainers) interpret this policy in practice?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2) what further information/documentation about this policy would be helpful?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 3) should this policy be different, and if so, how?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 4) any other related thoughts or observations
> >>>>>
> >>>> I generally interpret it to mean the effective license that covers the
> >>>> resulting artifacts shipped in the binary RPM. I think this is fine,
> >>>> but we definitely have a gap in RPM packaging in that we can't declare
> >>>> the license of the Source RPM anywhere.
> >>> Are you saying we should have a way to declare both 1) the license that
> >>> covers the resulting artifacts shipped in the binary RPM
> >>> and 2) the license of the source (that creates said binary)?
> >>>> This is particularly kludgy
> >>>> when you have vendored or bundled code.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't have specific solutions here, but I would like to avoid having
> >>>> the list licenses for literally everything in a source tree when it
> >>>> doesn't matter for binary RPMs.
> >>> isn't having to list license for everything in the source the same as 2??
> >>>
> >> We are required to document source licensing for bundled stuff, which
> >> contravenes the "effective binary licensing" policy we have in
> >> general. If we didn't have that, we could avoid this whole problem.
> > Do you mean bundled stuff that is distributed with the binary RPM
> > (whether in the same form or somehow transformed), or bundled stuff
> > that happens to be in the source tarball or whatever but is ignored in
> > building the binary RPM?
> >
> > If it's the latter then that does seem to contradict the "license of
> > the binary" policy.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> I'm also wondering where the "required to document source licensing for
> bundled stuff" is documented? Can you point to that?
>

It was something we were told to do years ago for Rust/Go stuff. I'm
not sure I can find a specific reference for it. I have mentioned it
before though[1].

[1]: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/POAC4FDCIPU3W24DGY2LCDTDC7WYBNPN/


-- 
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!
_______________________________________________
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux