Are there any documents specifically mentioning about licensing of metainfo files getting installed by Fedora packages? Should Fedora package combine package code/content license with metainfo license and have it as final package license tag?
e.g. some package licensed under "OFL" and metainfo file licensed under "MIT" then is it MUST that that package be licensed under "OFL and MIT" license or just "OFL" is okay as license tag?
What if Fedora package installs packager written metainfo file under license "MIT" then should package license tag also include "MIT" license tag? or it can be ignored as packager contributed dist-git files are already considered under "MIT" license?
I am reporting this ticket as we have got request for fonts packaging license bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2089366
If there is already some discussion happened in the past about this issue then do provide links to that discussion here.
Thank you.
This is more of a question for the legal folks, not the packaging committee. All we're going to be able to say is that the License: tag on each binary RPM should reflect the license(s) of the files in that RPM. If those files are under multiple licenses, then https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios applies.
Not much else we can say here besides that there is broad agreement that it's unpleasant to clutter up the license tag with metadata. But any exemption for non-upstream metadata would have to come from the Legal folks.
Metadata Update from @tibbs: - Issue close_status updated to: nothingtodo - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Login to comment on this ticket.