Re: [cdparanoia] License field fix awaiting to be merged

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



CC'ing Zbyszek

On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 6:27 PM Jiri Kucera <jkucera@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Zbyszek,

reply inline

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 5:42 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:31:15PM -0000, Benjamin Beasley wrote:
> > So, it doesn't really matter if two source files are distributed under the GPLv2+ license.
> > The resulting binary (i.e. /usr/bin/cdparanoia) will always be GPLv2.
> > […]
> > But Licensing Guidelines make clear that the License: field refers to the
> > binary packages not source ones.
> >
> > BR,
> >
> > Andrea
>
> The “effective license” approach you advocated is not mentioned in the packaging guidelines but has historical support in the wiki (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F). It has also come up on the fedora-legal list recently (https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/W57JRNLWVOT55D7TDF7VYFMJT5QMBEGR/).

FWIW, the licensing guidelines live on the wiki. There is nothing
"historical" about the Licensing:FAQ document, it is still the official
guide of how to interpret the Licensing:Main page.

I know Ben wrote something that disagrees with the document, but
I think he is wrong. It also goes against the long-established practice.
And if we want to change the rules, the document that specifies them
should be changed, a post on the mailing list is not enough.

> There is, I think, a valid question of how much mechanistic detail to apply to documenting the source files *that contribute to the binary RPM contents.* One approach, which I have favored in my packages, exhaustively lists licenses of such files. The other, which you have advocated, simplifies the license field into an “effective license” when clearly appropriate. Both philosophies seem to be well-established as acceptable. My view is therefore this patch seems to be correct but not absolutely required.

No, the patch is wrong. It's not super harmful, but it's still wrong.

So what should be the correct License then? According to [1], the one possibility is

  License: (GPLv2 and GPLv2+) and LGPLv2

but according to [2] point 2, this should be shortened to

  License: GPLv2 and LGPLv2

because GPLv2 is stricter. Should the patch be reverted with the comment explaining multiple licensing situations?

Regards,
Jiri

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux