I'm doing a review for miopen [1][2] and I'm hitting an issue with the license file(s) that I'm not sure how to handle. I suspect that this isn't a unique situation so I'm asking here. The upstream is distributed as MIT but contains a few files which have additional or different licenses. Two files include BSD-2-Clause, two files include Apache-2.0 and one is Public Domain. The upstream project includes a LICENSE.txt file which only contains the MIT license. As I understand packaging policy, we're only supposed to include license text which is present upstream. If the package only includes the LICENSE.txt file with the binaries, that's missing the BSD and Apache licenses. I'm unclear on how this is supposed to be handled. Can't we just include the text from the files with non-MIT licenses in a separate file or by appending them to the end of upstream's LICENSE.txt? We could ask upstream to include the BSD-2-Clause and Apache-2.0 text in their LICENSE file but this seems like something that's not really their problem. They're not distributing binaries, they're distributing the copyright notice with the individual files. Does anyone have knowledge on how situations like this have been handled in the past? Thanks, Tim [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2261201 [2] https://github.com/ROCm/MIOpen -- _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
