The guidelines/requirements around things like the license tag are not set in stone. If people think they are impractical or otherwise should be revised, anyone should feel free to make a proposal. I think so far, though, I am not seeing evidence of major impracticality (for the kinds of issues that are being submitted at fedora-license-data). I believe alternative proposals would need to have the following features: - license metadata consisting of syntactically-correct SPDX expressions - SPDX expressions should semantically mean something very close to the apparent meaning under the SPDX specification (for example, "MIT" can't mean what it meant under the pre-SPDX system) - license tags can't be based on individual license interpretations that are applied inconsistently across different packages and among different package maintainers - license tags can't be based on a principle that some licenses can be arbitrarily ignored (if there's going to be some theory under which you ignore certain licenses, but not others, it should apply uniformly across all packages) Richard On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 12:37 PM Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
