CC'ing Zbyszek On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 6:27 PM Jiri Kucera <jkuc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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
