On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 9:40 AM Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Dne 25. 05. 22 v 8:45 Panu Matilainen napsal(a): > > On 5/23/22 19:44, Neal Gompa wrote: > >> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 12:37 PM Jilayne Lovejoy > >> <jlovejoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Fedora legal and packaging, > >>> > >>> I'm cross-posting this, as I think it's relevant to both groups. > >>> > >>> The current policy for filling out the license field of the spec > >>> file (as described at > >>> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/ > >>> ) states, "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents > >>> of the binary rpm. When in doubt, ask." > >>> > >>> As we consider how to improve documentation related to Fedora > >>> licensing, it would be helpful to hear people's thoughts on the > >>> following: > >>> > >>> 1) how do you (package maintainers) interpret this policy in practice? > >>> > >>> 2) what further information/documentation about this policy would be > >>> helpful? > >>> > >>> 3) should this policy be different, and if so, how? > >>> > >>> 4) any other related thoughts or observations > >>> > >> > >> I generally interpret it to mean the effective license that covers the > >> resulting artifacts shipped in the binary RPM. I think this is fine, > >> but we definitely have a gap in RPM packaging in that we can't declare > >> the license of the Source RPM anywhere. This is particularly kludgy > >> when you have vendored or bundled code. > > > > I seem to have a dim recollection of ability to define source license > > separately being requested at some point years ago, but it never went > > anywhere, for whatever reason. > > > > ... > > > > After rummaging through some dusty archives, turns that discussion > > took place between Spot and myself in August 2007. No wonder the > > recollection was dim. I guess there was never any ticket/bug filed on > > it and the email simply got slowly buried in the sediment. > > > > Feel free to open a ticket at > > https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/ if this is something > > we should look into. Doesn't seem like rocket science to add an > > optional SourceLicense that would be used for the src.rpm license if > > present, or something like that. > > > > Sorry for resurrecting old thread. But it was never referred here, that > after all. this was requested and implemented in RPM: > > https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2079 > > https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2117 > > therefore there is now `SourceLicense` tag supported by RPM 4.19+ > available in F40+. > > And I wonder, should we update our license guidelines and start to use > the `SourceLicense` tag? There was an issue several months ago where this was brought up, IIRC. My thought was that use of `SourceLicense:` could be optional in addition to populating `License` but wouldn't be encouraged. But did you mean, should we actually deprecate use of `License` in favor of `SourceLicense` (with all that would imply: the `SourceLicense` tag would then consist of an enumeration of licenses covering the entirety of the source code)? That seems like it would be a pretty radical change, which is not to suggest that it's a bad idea. Richard -- _______________________________________________ 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
