On Sat, Jan 01, 2022 at 11:11:47AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> ipxe.spec
...
> Testing rpm-specs/ipxe.spec
> No terminal defined for 'w' at line 1 col 8
>
> GPLv2 with additional permissions and BSD
> ^
>
> Expecting: {'AND', 'OR'}
The license does appear to be accurate in the sense that it reflects
the somewhat unusual license of iPXE. Specifically iPXE permits
distributing unmodified binaries without source if they are "built
from publicly available source code" but without imposing the usual
GPL obligation of the distributor having to provide source. (None of
this applies to Fedora of course since we do always provide source.)
Also it should be GPLv2+ not GPLv2. I cannot see anywhere where the
source limits itself to GPLv2 only.
The situation seems a bit similar to OCaml packages where we often use
"LGPLv2+ with exceptions". OCaml uses LGPLv2+ but grants additional
permissions to do with not requiring distributors to comply with some
of the obligations in clause 2 of the LGPLv2.
So maybe the iPXE license should be:
License: GPLv2+ with exceptions and BSD
I didn't change it.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a
live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into KVM guests.
http://libguestfs.org/virt-v2v
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
