Dne 25. 07. 23 v 23:13 Richard Fontana napsal(a):
I'm interested in proposing that Fedora adopt a 'common-licenses' directory convention, similar to Debian and Debian-derived distributions, whereby default installations of Fedora would include a prepopulated subdirectory /usr/share/licenses/common-licenses (or maybe /usr/share/common-licenses)
I don't think that any folder such as `common-licenses` is good idea.Let me explain. I think that ultimately, we should remove all license files from our packages and replace them with symlinks to some common location, be it e.g. `/usr/share/licenses/`. This directory could well be populated by some package such as `spdx-licenses`. But I don't think we should really treat some licenses somehow exceptionally. Of course, the `spdx-licenses` could be split into some subpackages such as `spdx-licenses-common`, but there is no real need to place them elsewhere. And if there is the need (I can't really see it), then again, they should be linked into some common location.
Vít
with certain highly common license
texts. A Debian container I am currently running has these files in
/usr/share/common-licenses:
Apache-2.0
Artistic
BSD
CC0-1.0
GFDL
GFDL-1.2
GFDL-1.3
GPL
GPL-1
GPL-2
GPL-3
LGPL
LGPL-2
LGPL-2.1
LGPL-3
MPL-1.1
MPL-2.0
I do not propose to have all or even most of those, but I could see a
basis for GPLv2, GPLv3, LGPLv2.0, LGPLv2.1, probably LGPLv3, maybe
Apache-2.0. These happen not only to be licenses that are very common
in Fedora (LGPLv3 might be an exception but it would be associated
with LGPL-2.x-or-later licensing), but also they tend not to occur in
textually noteworthy variants. For example, we all know that there are
lots of different GPLv2 texts out there with different current and
historical FSF addresses, but they are commonly seen as equivalent by
the relevant license using community, such that updating to a
newer-FSF-address version is seen as unremarkable to everyone except
possibly for super-pedantic FOSS license obsessives.
This would go a little way towards addressing the problem of defining
a modern policy for inclusion of license files with binary packages.
If an applicable package license is already contained in
/usr/share/licenses/common-licenses (let's say, as indicated by the
spec file License: field, even though that has shortcomings), that
license could be omitted from inclusion in
/usr/share/licenses/{package name}/. This would mean, for example,
that a Fedora system would no longer need to have tens of thousands of
identical/near-identical copies of GPLv2 in /usr/share/licenses/.
What I am totally unclear on is how something like this should be
proposed. Is it a packaging policy issue, or a proposal for a change
in some existing fundamental package that gets installed on all
systems (probably not fedora-release, but maybe something similar to
that?)? A package created for this specific purpose? Is it a FESCO
issue?
Richard
_______________________________________________
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
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ 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
