On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:31:15PM -0000, Benjamin Beasley wrote: > > 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/).
FWIW, the licensing guidelines live on the wiki. There is nothing "historical" about the Licensing:FAQ document, it is still the official guide of how to interpret the Licensing:Main page. I know Ben wrote something that disagrees with the document, but I think he is wrong. It also goes against the long-established practice. And if we want to change the rules, the document that specifies them should be changed, a post on the mailing list is not enough. > 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. No, the patch is wrong. It's not super harmful, but it's still wrong. > 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. Yes, exactly. And if we try to go down this path (which I don't think we should), we would need a plan to change all packages, not just one or two. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ 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
