Description of problem: Currently the license tag in the spec file is BSD, but as Richard Shaw pointed out in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819678#c5 the licensing is a bit more complicated: $ licensecheck -r . | awk 'match($0,":"){print substr($0,RSTART+2)}' | sort | uniq -c | sort -g -r 768 UNKNOWN 636 *No copyright* UNKNOWN 105 BSD (2 clause) 90 GENERATED FILE 37 MIT/X11 (BSD like) 19 zlib/libpng 11 *No copyright* GENERATED FILE 9 BSD (3 clause) 4 GPL (with incorrect FSF address) 2 ISC 2 GPL (v3 or later) 2 GPL 2 BSD (4 clause) 2 BSD (2 clause) GENERATED FILE 1 *No copyright* ISC The GPL 3 or later files are bison generated parsers which have an exception granting redistribution under terms of your choice, so these are not incompatible with the GPLv2+ files. However, as Richard says, the license tag should probably be BSD and MIT and GPLv2+ and zlib
Let's look at which files of these are actually used... :) I believe the zlib/libpng is largely bundled copies of libs, that we don't use due to --system-libs build flag, though there is Source/kwsys/MD5.c that I'll look into separately. Wrt GPL these all seem to come from bison. Then we have a bunch of stuff in Source/CursesDialog/form/ that is MIT/X11 (BSD like)
(In reply to comment #1) > Let's look at which files of these are actually used... :) > > I believe the zlib/libpng is largely bundled copies of libs, that we don't use > due to --system-libs build flag, though there is Source/kwsys/MD5.c that I'll > look into separately. > > Wrt GPL these all seem to come from bison. > > Then we have a bunch of stuff in Source/CursesDialog/form/ that is MIT/X11 (BSD > like) Right - but shouldn't the License tag reflect what is distributed in the SRPM? Or is it meant to reflect the code that's used in the binary rpms? I can see arguments both ways...
I'm firmly in the "reflect code that's used in the binary rpms" camp. :) OK, MD5.c is bundled(md5-deutsch), see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#cite_note-1 So, I'd advocate going with # most sources are BSD # Source/CursesDialog/form/ a bunch is MIT # Source/kwsys/MD5.c is bundled(md5-deutsch) and zlib licensed # some GPL-licensed bison-generated files, these all include an exception granting redistribution under terms of your choice License: BSD and MIT and zlib # Source/kwsys/MD5.c # see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries Provides: bundled(md5-deutsch) %changelog * Thu May 10 2012 Rex Dieter <rdieter> 2.8.8-3 - Incorrect license tag in spec file (#820334)
See also, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#Multiple_licensing_situations "... So, if you are comfortable calculating the effective license it can be helpful to others to use that in the License: field. If you're not comfortable, or you wish to be precise in how you populate the License: field, you may list all of the licenses in the source that were compiled together to make the combined work in the binary rpm. " Note the *binary rpm* part. :)
OK, excellent - thanks for the clarification and the education :).