Hi, Tim Flink <tflink@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. I have a similar scenario with some of my packages. What I do is mark all the LICENSE.txt files that upstream includes as %license and leave it at that. I don't create/modify/update any existing upstream files. The other licenses (which aren't listed in LICENSE.txt), I list them in spec file using the License tag. In your case, that would be using something like: License: MIT and BSD-2-Clause and Apache-2.0 and LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain (And please add the public domain text to https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/blob/main/public-domain-text.txt) Someone please correct me if this is wrong. Cheers, Omair -- PGP Key: B157A9F0 (http://pgp.mit.edu/) Fingerprint = 9DB5 2F0B FD3E C239 E108 E7BD DF99 7AF8 B157 A9F0 -- _______________________________________________ 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
