On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 1:15 AM Ben Cotton <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 4:21 AM Parag Nemade <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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? > > > You certainly *can* add it. There's a bit of a philosophical and > practical question about how detailed the license field should be. In > general, for single files in a larger package that have a > less...complex? obligation-imposing? license, it's okay if the > package's license field doesn't include it. However, considering that > the main consumer of this field probably is either tooling or > downstreams looking to modify the package, "when in doubt, add it" is > a good approach. > Thank you Ben for your reply here. I understand this now. 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
