https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1964787 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(rjones@xxxxxxxxxx | |) | --- Comment #16 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> --- The spec file (a part of the Fedora project), the sources, and the binary files/RPM(s) produced by rpmbuild each have different licenses. Usually we don't add a license notice to spec files and they are implicitly licensed under MIT, although see the link I posted before about exceptions to this. The binaries are what License: refers to, and you need to specify that. It is copied into the headers of the binary RPMs and can be viewed using rpm -qip foo.rpm The source tarball often has the same or wider license as the binaries, and that is defined by whatever license files are included in the tarball and/or headers of source files. This does not need to be specified in the spec file, although in almost every case since it's the same as the binaries, it'll be what License says too. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-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/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
