Richard Fontana kirjoitti 7.6.2022 klo 0.13:
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 2:12 AM Otto Urpelainen <oturpe@xxxxxx> wrote:
3. Specifically related to the effective licensing question, MIT and BSD
basically *only* ask to include the license text when shipping binaries.
The effective licensing thing then erases those licenses, if there is
GPL somewhere in the mix. The cognitive dissonance between wanting to
honor upstream licenses and not shipping them due to effective licensing
is serious. Since MIT and BSD are very common licenses, and code under
them is also very commonly found embedded in otherwise GPL projects, I
would like the licensing policy explicitly cover this situation and
explain why it is allowed to not ship the MIT/BSD license in this case.
(Perhaps, it would be good to revisit the part of the policy that
discussed shipping license texts and consider, why is that required: It
is in order to honor upstream licenses, or for some other reason, like
end user convenience?)
All the licenses are shipped in that they are found in the SRPM.
Implicitly, Fedora's position is that this is compliant with those
permissive licenses. I think the issue you're raising is Fedora's
policy on what license texts to install in /usr/share/licenses. I
don't think that issue is directly tied to how the License: field is
populated. I couldn't immediately find any documentation on the
/usr/share/licenses policy, but my intuition from looking at lots of
Fedora and RHEL packages is that this contains any license text that
seems to be "global" in some way, and in cases where there is no
obvious such license, some appropriate license is selected from the
source files for this purpose. We might want to separately revisit the
/usr/share/licenses policy at some point if there is interest.
Yes, I was talking about installed license texts.
I brought it up because it is part of the Licensing Guidelines,
in section License Text [1].
If the purpose of the current effort is just to upgrade the License
identifiers,
then it is out of scope as you say.
Anyhow, the License Text section seems to imply that the only allowed
method of shipping the license
is to install it as part of the binary package:
"
However, in situations where upstream is unresponsive, unable, or
unwilling to provide proper full license text as part of the source
code, and the indicated license requires that the full license text be
included, Fedora Packagers must either:
* Include a copy of what they believe the license text is intended to
be, as part of the Fedora package in %license, in order to remain in
compliance.
* Choose not to package that software for Fedora.
"
Adding the missing license as a new Source: would push it to srpm,
but would violate the above rule, which is written as a MUST.
[1]:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
_______________________________________________
packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-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/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
