V Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 07:11:09AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): > We added new license LicenseRef-Not-Copyrightable that should be used for > packages like foo-filesystem that e.g., create just directories and does not > have copyrightable code nor content. > I believe all metapackages, i.e. packages without files which only require another packages, fall into this category.
Therefore I believe that a binary "perl" package should: -License: GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl +License: LicenseRef-Not-Copyrightable First, I wanted to write to legal list, to ask them whether LicenseRef-Not-Copyrightable also applies to metapackages with a proper upstream. But when I tried to formulate what binary "perl" means, I realized that because of dual-lived modules, it is not all libraries, tools, documentation and features you get by compiling perl sources. We transitively install software built from different sources. Also we cannot predict dual-lived packages to comes with a new license. And we even do not want to track the changes in perl package. Those are the reasons why we do not list licenses of all 190 dependent packages in "perl". Therefore I believe that "GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl" at "perl" is an overly simplified statement that it's a lie. By the way, if you want to list all the licenses used in the perl sources, RPM has a new "SourceLicense" tag for that. -- Petr
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- _______________________________________________ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
