https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323186 Rick Tierney <rick.tierney@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(nhorman@xxxxxxxxx | |m) --- Comment #29 from Rick Tierney <rick.tierney@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Rick Tierney from comment #28) > From Comment #12, you wrote: > <NH> > Package includes License files > Third_Party_Copyright_Notices_and_Licenses.docx > and THIRD-PARTY-README which seem to relate to code which is not packaged in > this srpm. If that is the case, then these files should not be packaged. > If it is the case, then the license needs to change in the spec file, the > docx files needs to be converted to text and the binaries need to have thier > licensing ennumerated. > > > (In reply to Neil Horman from comment #13) > > What you need to do is go through the code and determine which code is > > licensed in which way. Your spec file indicates its all BSD, but the docs > > in the source tarball indicate their are multiple licenses. You need to > > figure out how the code is licensed and make the spec file agree with that, > > following the conventions in the fedora packaging and licensing guidelines. > > Neil: > The above statements come from comments 12 and 13 and were in response to > Robert Amato's questions regarding license files. I'm trying to determine > the correct course of action regarding whether to include certain files or > not. The driving force here is to comply with Fedora Packaging Guidelines > AND satisfy criteria set forth by the Intel Legal Dept for purposes that go > beyond the Fedora Packaging process. If these two criteria conflict, then I > will have to track two separate branches and I'd prefer not to do that if > possible. > > On the one hand, our Legal team has instructed us to: > 1. Include all the 3rd Party license files in same folder as the jar files > for the binary RPM. > 2. Include the following in both RPM and SRPM: > a. Third_Party_Copyright_Notices_and_Licenses: Contains ALL applicable > licenses for 3rd parties and more. This was originially a MS-Word document > that I changed to a text file. > b. LICENSE: BSD (3-clause) for opa-fmgui > c. THIRD-PARTY-README: Listing of 3rd party libraries and the location of > their license files > > On the other hand, based on your answers to previous questions we should: > a. Remove the Third_Party_Copyright_Notices_and_Licenses and > THIRD-PARTY-README files because their source code isn't packaged > b. And this part isn't clear to me... whether the license files should be > in the RPM lib/ folder with jar files or not. If it is okay to do this then > I would rather leave it this way to comply with Intel Legal. > > I want to make sure I have everything in the right place and omit what is > not permitted. Could you weigh in on this? > > Thanks! > Rick Addendum: I have figured out all of the licenses that are being used and updated the License tag in the spec file. I think that part of the issue is complete. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx