On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 11:18:52AM +0200, Sandro Mani wrote: > Hi > > Updating mingw-sip I've re-verified the license to convert it to SPDX, and > came across the SIP license which does not exist as a SPDX identifier. [1] > states > > """ > > SIP is available under the following licenses. > > * SIP License. This is very similar to the Python Software Foundation > license used for Python itself. I find this statement of similarity to the PSF license to be disingenuous given that the SIP license adds a clause that makes the license non-free IIUC: > RIVERBANK COMPUTING LIMITED LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR SIP snip > 4. Licensee may not use SIP to generate Python bindings for any C or C++ > library for which bindings are already provided by Riverbank. This is an anti-competitive restriction on usage. > * GNU General Public License v2 > <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html> > * GNU General Public License v3 > <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html> > > """ > > I take this should be > > License: SIP OR GPL-v2.0-only OR GPL-v3.0-only > > (provided SIP existed as a SPDX identifier)? IIUC, since SIP looks like a non-free license, we would omit it from SPDX expression in the RPM package, only listing the two GPL options. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| _______________________________________________ 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
