On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 8:15 AM Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > BTW this is interesting discussion about license field not being > expressive enough: > > https://github.com/puma/puma/issues/3311#issuecomment-1886065710 > > TLDR: "What I do not want is for someone to think BSD, MIT in the > license field applies to the entire Puma project, as that is not how > this project is licensed. We're talking about 50 lines of code in a > 5000+ line library, giving the two equal billing in the licenses field > doesn't describe what's happening here." That is an interesting point. In Fedora's case, no one should be getting the impression that all the licenses in a License: tag expression have "equal billing" but I understand how that could be seen as an undesirable effect. At one time I thought about a convention where the License tag would only list the top N results of a source code license scanning tool (I was thinking of ScanCode) but for various reasons that could be unsatisfactory. This kind of relates to comments about "effective licenses" and so forth. Sometimes what people seem to mean by this is "the majority license of the project", but I think it could be challenging to come up with a precise definition of this. Richard -- _______________________________________________ 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
