On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:55 AM Vít Ondruch <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thank you for elaborating. But unfortunately, the only thing this > definitely answers is that I can "ignore" the license file for the > moment. But how to proceed? > > One thing to note about the package is that in ideal world, it would not > exist, because either 1) the file would be included and shipped by RPM > or even better 2) the file would not be needed, because there are other > ways to implement this functionality in RPM [1]. I want to submit this > to upstream, but upstream is not responsible to this issue :/ So would > it make things simple, if the package have the same license as RPM, i.e. > `GPLv2+`.
Because it would make it more likely that the RPM maintainers will ship this empty file? I don't know. My only thought is that it is not good to give the impression that a license like GPLv2+ or the MIT license can apply to an empty file. But I guess it's not the worst thing in the world. Richard > > Don't forget that part of my question was if the content is > copyrightable and with the context above, if it was shipped directly by > RPM, the answer would probably be yes. > > > Vít > > > [1] > https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/782#issuecomment-1748317568 > > > > Dne 16. 10. 23 v 17:53 Richard Fontana napsal(a): > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 11:01 AM Vít Ondruch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I have submitted rpm-local-generator-support package for a review [1]. It > >> can't be simpler: > >> > >> https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/vondruch/public_git/rpm-local-generator-support.git/plain/rpm-local-generator-support.spec?id=469fcda122c5856dc10bae4cb75daee0cdf61d15 > >> > >> It essentially just creates empty file and places it into directory > >> structure. I have used `License: MIT` tag, because what else. > > This reminds me of some packages that used "Public domain" under the > > Callaway system in the less typical sense of "true" public domain. For > > one example, see: > > https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/347 where > > I suggest the use of `LicenseRef-Not-Copyrightable`. This is not > > currently in the fedora-license-data set of licenses, but it is used > > in fedora-license-data itself as part of its attempt to conform the > > repository to the REUSE specification. where REUSE would generally > > recommend the use of CC0-1.0. > > > > I have been assuming that License tags cannot be empty under Fedora > > packaging rules (the legal docs are silent on this currently) or that > > non-empty License tags are enforced by certain tools. > > > > For policy reasons, I wouldn't recommend using the MIT license (or > > CC0) but I wouldn't be surprised to learn there are similar packages > > that use MIT, GPLv2, etc. > > > > Whether a package that says it's under "MIT" has to or should ship the > > license file is a mostly separate question. Under the Callaway system > > there was an expectation that Fedora should "correct" the omission of > > license files by upstream projects. The current Fedora legal > > documentation deliberately avoids the whole topic of license files > > because last year we wanted to move ahead with the new guidelines > > around SPDX identifiers and so forth without waiting to figure out how > > to deal with license files, and we still haven't figured that out. > > > > The default Fedora license for spec files is the MIT license by virtue > > of the FPCA (which Fedora should get rid of). Even if the spec file in > > this case is covered by the MIT license it would not mean the package > > itself is covered by the MIT license. The FPCA wouldn't even reach the > > case of a package like this one if you accept the position that the > > contents of the package are not copyrightable. > > > > Richard > > > > > >> But the package review correctly pointed out that I should also ship the > >> license file, which would substantially complicate everything. And now I > >> wonder, is there even anything what would be licensable? Is the empty file > >> created somewhere in the directory structure worth of anything? Can the > >> License tag be omitted and would the file be covered by the default Fedora > >> license for .spec files? > >> > >> > >> Vít > >> > _______________________________________________ > 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, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue -- Richard Fontana Senior Commercial Counsel Technology & Open Source Red Hat [email protected] If I am emailing outside of business hours, it does not mean I expect you to do the same. _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
