* Richard Fontana: > I assume we *wouldn't* want the vast majority of such packages to > include `AND GPL-3.0-or-later WITH GCC-exception-3.1` . . . or would > we? We'd need to include a different specifier (TBD) for the glibc startup code, which is also statically linked. > In the revamped documentation we were mostly trying to carry over > and restate (with some rationalization) the principles under the > Callaway system, and clearly in that system most packages did not > account for libgcc code by adding `and GPLv3+ with exceptions`. I > thought this was also true of the Rust and Go cases, that we were > restating a Callaway principle rather than creating some new rule. I > remember when we were formulating the new documentation there were > some comments here from Fedora Rust and Go packagers but IIRC no one > seemed to object to the basic expectation that you represent all > statically linked Rust/Go libraries in the License: field beyond some > concerns about the adequacy of tools to facilitate this. I could be persuaded by an argument along these lines: The Rust and Go cases are different because for its Rust and Go dependencies, there would not be a trace in the installed system of the licenses of those source-only dependencies. The situation with glibc, libgcc and libstdc++ is different because they are also installed separately, so their license information is always part of the installation. > Maybe the libgcc case can be distinguished because (1) it covers I > guess nearly all non-noarch packages, not just packages associated > with a particular language like Rust or Go, Right, as such it adds very little information. > and (2) the license in question is actually saying 'in this scenario > you have no obligations' (whereas for an arbitrary case of the license > of a statically linked Rust or Go component that wouldn't be the > case). I'm worried about (2). Are we certain the the exception applies to Ocaml and other compilers we ship? To me, this is very uncertain territory and it is clearly effective licensing analysis. Thanks, Florian _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
