> So, it doesn't really matter if two source files are distributed under the > GPLv2+ license. > The resulting binary (i.e. /usr/bin/cdparanoia) will always be GPLv2. > […] > But Licensing Guidelines make clear that the License: field refers to the > binary packages not source ones. > > BR, > > Andrea
The “effective license” approach you advocated is not mentioned in the packaging guidelines but has historical support in the wiki (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F). It has also come up on the fedora-legal list recently (https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/W57JRNLWVOT55D7TDF7VYFMJT5QMBEGR/). There is, I think, a valid question of how much mechanistic detail to apply to documenting the source files *that contribute to the binary RPM contents.* One approach, which I have favored in my packages, exhaustively lists licenses of such files. The other, which you have advocated, simplifies the license field into an “effective license” when clearly appropriate. Both philosophies seem to be well-established as acceptable. My view is therefore this patch seems to be correct but not absolutely required. HOWEVER: I have to agree with you that the idea of documenting the licenses of SRPM contents seems to be a questionable justification, as current Guidelines are clear that the License field is for the binary package contents. If documenting SRPM contents became policy, it would require pervasive changes to existing packages. For example, sources that belong to the build system would need to be documented. Nearly all autotools-based packages would have to add several licenses, as install-sh is commonly MIT, aclocal.m4 and various generated files are commonly FSFULLR, configure scripts are commonly FSFUL, at least GNU configure.ac files are commonly FSFAP, and so on. If following this approach strictly, even the licenses of bundled libraries removed in %prep would need to be documented—after all, they are still in the source tarball, so they are in the SRPM. In addition to being tedious, I think that would make the License field less useful than it is now. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
