On August 10, 2022 4:35:10 PM UTC, Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >With the move to SPDX license nomenclature I'm starting to reevaluate how >I review licenses during a package review. > >I'm working on a review and it looks like some of the documentation, i.e. >stuff that would go in %doc has a specific license. I don't know if this is >uncommon or if I just hadn't noticed before, but does this actually impact >the package licensing? If the %doc part belongs to the main package, then I'd just combine all licenses via AND including the license of the documentation. If it's a separate package, the use the doc license for the -doc subpackage (provided that rpm supports this). But IANAL applies as usual. > >In general, I would say that the package license should be based on what's >actually in the resultant package (not build system stuff like autotools, >random scripts, etc). That seems pretty straightforward, but documentation? > >Thanks, >Richard _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
