Dne 25. 03. 24 v 14:26 Richard Fontana napsal(a):
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 observationsI 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.
My thinking is that we redistribute SRPM and therefore the `SourceLicense:` would be ideal to cover the content of SRPM.
But since you also mentioned deprecating `License` field, it sounds radical, but after all, it would probably make my life easier. I am asking because currently, I am looking at:
https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/v3_3_0/missing/dtoa.cPresumably, this code is used just sometimes on some platforms. Now how am I supposed to know when it happens?
OTOH if we deprecated the `License` tag, then we could keep using it in the `SourceLicense` meaning, right? We went full circle here :)
Vít
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
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- _______________________________________________ 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
