Hi, On August 10, 2022 6:22:43 PM UTC, Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 1:47 PM Dan Čermák ><dan.cermak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> 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. > >That sounds right to me ... > >> >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). > >Yes, and that is consistent with both the new Fedora legal >documentation as well as the earlier guidelines (as I read them, >anyway). > >> That seems pretty straightforward, but documentation? > >I think there's a couple of issues. First, all documentation files >distributed by Fedora should be under a Fedora-allowed license for >documentation. This is true even if the documentation files are not in >the built package. Second, to what extent should licenses unique to >documentation in a built package be reflected in the License: field? >Up to now it's pretty clear Fedora packages have been inconsistent in >how they've handled this. My assumption however is that documentation >licensing should not be ignored in populating the License: field and >we can make this clear with an example in the new legal documentation. >(I *think* for the vast majority of Fedora packages there is no >license for documentation distinct from the software license.) I think that there's another pitfall here: if you e.g. build a HTML documentation, then you should (?) include the license of all the bundled fonts, CSS and JavaScript as well. I'm afraid we mostly don't do this at all. PDF would be probably a lot safer. >On a general note, it's important to pay attention to documentation >licensing even though it may seem less critical than software >licensing. Although this is still being looked into, there seems to be >some evidence of Fedora packages that are including upstream >documentation under disallowed licenses (in particular "NC" varieties >of Creative Commons licenses). > >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 _______________________________________________ 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
