On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 7:10 AM Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Dne 01. 08. 24 v 12:54 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 6:33 AM Miroslav Suchý <msuchy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Dne 01. 08. 24 v 12:28 odp. Peter Lemenkov napsal(a): > >>> Hello! > >>> I stumbled upon the following situation. I am packaging a library > >>> under MIT license. However the upstream-provided build-script in a > >>> tarball explicitly licensed under ISC license (has a header with ISC > >>> license). If it matters I do not use this script for building at all. > >>> So I have two questions. > >>> > >>> 1. If a tarball has a differently licensed file which is not going to > >>> a final RPM should I still list its license in a spec's %license > >>> field? > >>> 2. Does it change anything if this file wasn't used at all during RPM > >>> build process? > >>> > >> See > >> > >> https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-legal-docs/-/issues/61 > >> > >> > Does not affect the License tag. But the license of the file must be from the allowed list. > >> > > That's not the full answer. We do have a way to represent this > > information by using the SourceLicense tag. > > > I don't think this tag is reflected in our guidelines or is it? No, because hardly anyone seems to be using it. 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
