On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 03:48:28PM +0200, Josef Řídký wrote: > As the mentioned patent clause is there for 10+ years I might just believe > it went through Fedora Legal, as it is a much older legal related task than > I am co-maintainer of the openexr itself. > > But I am fine with having conversation with the Legal team about the proper > SPDX license clause that should be used for this project. Yes, I don't think it is correct to merely have "License: BSD-3-Clause" listed in the spec. The LICENSE file refers to BSD-3-Clause as the overall license, but the PATENTS file refines that to indicate that a subset of files are under a choice of BSD-3-Clause OR Apache-2.0, and that when taken under the BSD-3-Clause there is an additional patent grant (whose language looks derived from the Apache patent grant clause). The patent grant feels like it effectively creates a new version of the BSD-3-Clause that would need a name. IOW the RPM license would end up being an expression along the lines of: "BSD-3-Clause AND (BSD-3-Clause-with-...something... OR Apache-2.0)" A ticket for Fedora legal at the 'fedora-license-data' repo is the way forward. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- _______________________________________________ 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
