V Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 03:27:23PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): > I started packaging Cavil and I stumbled upon this gem > > https://github.com/openSUSE/cavil/blob/master/t/legal-bot/error-invalid-xml-kiwi/fffe100e5a9a3e7f6d1fd97512215287/error-invalid-xml-kiwi.kiwi > > there are more like this. > > It has a SPDX header that say it is MIT license. But it is just test whether Cavil can detect the SPDX header. > > The code and project itself is GPL-2.0-only. > > What is the license of that file? Is it GPL-2.0-only and we ignore the > header because the meaning is just to test code and not declare license. Or > we cannot ignore it and the license of that file is MIT? > I think it depends on where the file comes from. If it was written by Cavil project, then Cavil's license applies. Though a nice remark explaining it a top-level COPYING file would be helpful. If it was copied from somewhere else, then a license of the somewhere else applies. In other words, it depends whether the three lines are a genuine license declaration, or just a string literal. I have the same situation in libmodulemd. A previous maintainer copied real files from a live Fedora system into a test suite. Because those files were created by real people as part as their works, their copyright and license terms apply. -- Petr
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP 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
