One thing to note about the package is that in ideal world, it would not exist, because either 1) the file would be included and shipped by RPM or even better 2) the file would not be needed, because there are other ways to implement this functionality in RPM [1]. I want to submit this to upstream, but upstream is not responsible to this issue :/ So would it make things simple, if the package have the same license as RPM, i.e. `GPLv2+`.
Don't forget that part of my question was if the content is copyrightable and with the context above, if it was shipped directly by RPM, the answer would probably be yes.
Vít[1] https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/782#issuecomment-1748317568
Dne 16. 10. 23 v 17:53 Richard Fontana napsal(a):
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 11:01 AM Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi, I have submitted rpm-local-generator-support package for a review [1]. It can't be simpler: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/vondruch/public_git/rpm-local-generator-support.git/plain/rpm-local-generator-support.spec?id=469fcda122c5856dc10bae4cb75daee0cdf61d15 It essentially just creates empty file and places it into directory structure. I have used `License: MIT` tag, because what else.This reminds me of some packages that used "Public domain" under the Callaway system in the less typical sense of "true" public domain. For one example, see: https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/347 where I suggest the use of `LicenseRef-Not-Copyrightable`. This is not currently in the fedora-license-data set of licenses, but it is used in fedora-license-data itself as part of its attempt to conform the repository to the REUSE specification. where REUSE would generally recommend the use of CC0-1.0. I have been assuming that License tags cannot be empty under Fedora packaging rules (the legal docs are silent on this currently) or that non-empty License tags are enforced by certain tools. For policy reasons, I wouldn't recommend using the MIT license (or CC0) but I wouldn't be surprised to learn there are similar packages that use MIT, GPLv2, etc. Whether a package that says it's under "MIT" has to or should ship the license file is a mostly separate question. Under the Callaway system there was an expectation that Fedora should "correct" the omission of license files by upstream projects. The current Fedora legal documentation deliberately avoids the whole topic of license files because last year we wanted to move ahead with the new guidelines around SPDX identifiers and so forth without waiting to figure out how to deal with license files, and we still haven't figured that out. The default Fedora license for spec files is the MIT license by virtue of the FPCA (which Fedora should get rid of). Even if the spec file in this case is covered by the MIT license it would not mean the package itself is covered by the MIT license. The FPCA wouldn't even reach the case of a package like this one if you accept the position that the contents of the package are not copyrightable. RichardBut the package review correctly pointed out that I should also ship the license file, which would substantially complicate everything. And now I wonder, is there even anything what would be licensable? Is the empty file created somewhere in the directory structure worth of anything? Can the License tag be omitted and would the file be covered by the default Fedora license for .spec files? Vít
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
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
