Hi, There are some packages where packager ships their own Source: files which are AppStream metainfo xml files under "CC0" license but do not list it in the package license tag. We have a guidelines page https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ for AppStream metainfo files. Some such package examples are https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/liberation-fonts/ https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/langpacks/ https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/firefox/
There are other 2 examples where upstream itself provides xml files in CC0 license but it is also not listed in its package license tag. https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/NetworkManager-openvpn/-/blob/master/appdata/network-manager-openvpn.metainfo.xml.in https://github.com/virt-manager/virt-manager/blob/master/data/virt-manager.appdata.xml.in My question is these xml files are in "CC0" license and the package has its own license already in the SPEC file. Should SPEC file License: tag add "and CC0" for those packages? I do not remember why AppStream xml file's license was not considered in SPEC file License: tag. Anyone knows why listing "CC0" is not needed? Regards, Parag.
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
