On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 7:10 AM Vít Ondruch <vondr...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dne 01. 08. 24 v 12:54 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 6:33 AM Miroslav Suchý <msu...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> Dne 01. 08. 24 v 12:28 odp. Peter Lemenkov napsal(a):
> >>> Hello!
> >>> I stumbled upon the following situation. I am packaging a library
> >>> under MIT license. However the upstream-provided build-script in a
> >>> tarball explicitly licensed under ISC license (has a header with ISC
> >>> license). If it matters I do not use this script for building at all.
> >>> So I have two questions.
> >>>
> >>> 1. If a tarball has a differently licensed file which is not going to
> >>> a final RPM should I still list its license in a spec's %license
> >>> field?
> >>> 2. Does it change anything if this file wasn't used at all during RPM
> >>> build process?
> >>>
> >> See
> >>
> >>     https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-legal-docs/-/issues/61
> >>
> >>   > Does not affect the License tag. But the license of the file must be 
> >> from the allowed list.
> >>
> > That's not the full answer. We do have a way to represent this
> > information by using the SourceLicense tag.
>
>
> I don't think this tag is reflected in our guidelines or is it?

No, because hardly anyone seems to be using it.

Richard

-- 
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-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/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Reply via email to