On 15/02/2024 23:57, Omair Majid wrote:
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.
It's wrong for licenses like Apache which require that the full
text is included. The guidelines explain what is needed:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (tom@xxxxxxxxxx)
http://compton.nu/
--
_______________________________________________
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
