Hi Zbyszek, reply inline
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 5:42 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > 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. > So what should be the correct License then? According to [1], the one possibility is License: (GPLv2 and GPLv2+) and LGPLv2 but according to [2] point 2, this should be shortened to License: GPLv2 and LGPLv2 because GPLv2 is stricter. Should the patch be reverted with the comment explaining multiple licensing situations? Regards, Jiri [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_mixed_source_licensing_scenario [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#How_should_I_handle_multiple_licensing_situations.3F
_______________________________________________ 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
