Hans,
Thanks for noticing, and for your very reasonable question.
In all of these cases, the CC0 component was due to the AppData XML file
for a desktop application. (In libinstpatch, the Public Domain component
was due to md5-plumb “copylib” source files that are linked into the
library.)
I’ve retained the pre-existing detailed comments in the spec files, so
there is still some record of per-file licensing for the curious.
-----
Your interpretation of preserving separate license terms in the License
field when they apply to separate installed files seems to be supported
by
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#How_should_I_handle_multiple_licensing_situations.3F,
at least in the case of separate compiled binaries. However, there was a
big discussion about effective licensing on the fedora-devel list a
month or two ago (and, a little earlier, a question on fedora-legal)
specifically concerning CC0-licensed AppData XML files.
I recall that all parties who spoke up felt it was correct to form an
effective license that did not mention CC0 in this case. As far as I
know, everyone understood that the AppData is installed as a separate
XML file asset and not linked into the code. Some seemed to feel that
leaving CC0 in the License field rather than forming a simpler effective
license is actually *wrong* and should not be allowed, an opinion I
don’t share but don’t care to debate.
-----
I am hoping not to initiate a broader discussion of when it is and isn’t
reasonable to expect packagers to derive effective licenses. Suffice it
to say that, in these specific simple cases, I think the changes are
clearly consistent with the community consensus, such as it is, and with
guidance from fedora-legal.
Regards,
Ben Beasley
On 7/9/21 10:07 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi Benjamin,
>
> On 7/9/21 3:47 PM, Benjamin Beasley wrote:
>> I’ve updated several of my packages to use only the “effective
license” in their License fields, in cases where it was very clear that
a single effective license was correct. The following packages are affected:
>>
>> - agenda: “GPLv3+ and GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and CC0” becomes “GPLv3+”
>> - appeditor: “GPLv3 and LGPLv2+ and CC0” becomes “GPLv3”
>> - gaupol: “GPLv3+ and CC0” becomes “GPLv3+”
>> - harmonyseq: “GPLv3+ and GPLv2+ and CC0” becomes “GPLv3+”
>> - libinstpatch: “LGPLv2 and Public Domain” becomes “LGPLv2”
>> - notejot: “GPLv3+ and GPLv2+ and CC0” becomes “GPLv3+”
>> - sequeler: “GPLv3+ and GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and CC0” becomes “GPLv3+”
>
> In general this is the right thing to do, thank you for simplifying
> the License field for these packages.
>
> One remark about this tough, I wonder what files the CC0 licenses
> were for ?
>
> Sometimes acceptable CC licenses (typically other ones then CC0)
> are used for assets, like icons / artwork / docs.
>
> In that case, since those assets are not linked into a resulting
> binary the assets stay under the CC license (AFAIK, IANAL, etc.).
>
> So if that is the case for any of the above packages then the new
> License field should still include the "and CC0", with the binaries
> being under the GPL variant and the assets being under CC0.
>
> This is typically documented with a comment in the .spec above the
> License field explaining things.
>
> Regards,
>
> Hans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
_______________________________________________
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
