On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 06:27:17PM +0200, Jiri Kucera 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. Yes, the second version is correct. The first version is not correct, because it's trying to say that you can distribute some specific binary under terms of "GPLv2 and GPLv2-or-any-later" at the same time, and the only way to you can do this without violating the terms of the first part is to ignore the "-or-any-later" clause of the second part. > Should the patch be reverted with the comment > explaining multiple licensing situations? Or just reverted. I think the comment that was there before was sufficient. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ 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
