On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 11:21:41AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > * Please consider requiring AppData for all desktop applications - > > https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/414 (spot, 16:21:21) > > * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/414#comment:3 > > (abadger1999, 16:22:49) > > * In the guidelines about adding AppData, please include the > > requirement for metadata licenses to match the upstream code license > > if we're creating the AppData file. (abadger1999, 17:07:28) > > Well, I'm not quite sure I got the point. From [1]: > > > <metadata_license/> > > > > The <metadata_license> tag is indicating the content license that you > > are releasing the AppData text file and screenshots as. This is not > > typically the same as the project license. (...) Permissible license > > codes include: > > > > CC0-1.0 > > CC-BY-3.0 > > (...) > > > > The old name for this tag was <licence/> and was changed for two > > reasons. It used the British English spelling, and also that it > > wasn't clear that the license given wasn't the project license, but > > rather the license for the metadata only. > > > > <project_license/> > > > > The <project_license> tag is indicating the licenses that you used > > for the application and any data or media files used. This is not > > typically the same as the metadata license. (...) > > I.e. metadata license to be the same as upstream code license is not > possible, giving that only *content* licenses are valid for this tag. > I don't see anything in there that says that a license that's only applicable for content must be used. What I'm reading is that the license only applies to the AppData content. But that license can be any license. According to the spec it could even be a proprietary license although that would mean that we wouldn't be able to use it in Fedora. > Also read: > > > This is not typically the same as the project license. > > Giving that, I'd say your proposition is wrong. > That's not a prescription but an observation. It's also an observation that doesn't point to any references to back it up so I'm not sure where the data comes from. If it should be prescriptive rather than a statement of fact, then there should be some jsutification instead. The justification for keeping the license the same as upstream is that: 1) upstream is more likely to take the changes if we conform to their licensing rather than force a new license for one file onto them. 2) it keeps all licensing information simpler if there's not a proliferation of licenses within the package. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpUqlI5C2EoO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
