On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:55 AM Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Thank you for elaborating. But unfortunately, the only thing this > definitely answers is that I can "ignore" the license file for the > moment. But how to proceed? > > 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+`. Because it would make it more likely that the RPM maintainers will ship this empty file? I don't know. My only thought is that it is not good to give the impression that a license like GPLv2+ or the MIT license can apply to an empty file. But I guess it's not the worst thing in the world. Richard > > 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. > > > > Richard > > > > > >> But 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 > >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Richard Fontana Senior Commercial Counsel Technology & Open Source Red Hat rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx If I am emailing outside of business hours, it does not mean I expect you to do the same. _______________________________________________ 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
