On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:29 AM Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 3:25 PM Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > So yes, we rely on and adhere to the "License tag reflects binary > > package contents" rule. > > So you are reasonably happy with the current rules as they affect the > License: field for Rust crate packages? Or is there anything you would > like to see changed? I wouldn't say I'm happy, but at this point it's well established, and we've updated our tools to automate almost all parts of the process (with human review, of course). The only thing that would make me happy would be saying that basic "license arithmetic" would be OK (i.e. allowing the simplification of "MIT AND (MIT OR Apache-2.0)" to just "MIT" (since "MIT" already implies "MIT OR Apache-2.0"), but I don't think this is going to happen ;) Fabio _______________________________________________ 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
