On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:23 PM Kevin P. Fleming <kpfleming@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 3/14/23 10:04, Caolán McNamara wrote: > > On Tue, 2023-03-14 at 08:47 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > >> ... LibreOffice ... > > FWIW I updated the LibreOffice one a while ago and ended up with: > > MPL-2.0 AND Apache-2.0 AND LGPL-3.0-only AND LGPL-3.0-or-later AND CC0- > > 1.0 AND BSD-3-Clause AND (LGPL-2.1-only OR SISSL) AND (MPL-2.0 OR LGPL- > > 3.0-or-later) AND (MPL-2.0 OR LGPL-2.1-or-later) AND (MPL-1.1 OR GPL- > > 2.0-only OR LGPL-2.1-only) > > > Pardon the small digression... > > One of the benefits of switching to this sort of license tag in the RPMs > is that it is purely objective fact; there are no subjective > determinations or opinions involved. So, for example, if that expression > above applies to the source tarball (or repository tag) for LibreOffice > 7.5.2.1, that expression is not in any way specific to Fedora; it's the > same for everyone who consumes that source release, no matter how they > are packaging it. The problem is that the License tag is supposed to describe the license of things in the *built* packages, not the license of the *source tarball*. So depending on build options and how things are distributed between subpackages, you cannot share them between distributions unless they use the exact same spec file. Future (recent?) versions of RPM have a separate tag for specifying the license of the *sources*: `SourceLicense`. c.f. https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2079 Fabio _______________________________________________ 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
