Dne 01. 08. 24 v 15:47 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:43 AM Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: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.Yes, because it's relatively new and it's not that important most of the time. It was added in RPM 4.18.
Well, unless it is in guidelines, I don't think it will be used. Vít
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital 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
