#1194 Update guidelines for Rust licensing
Merged 2 years ago by tibbs. Opened 2 years ago by jlovejoy.
Unknown source jl-rust  into  master

@@ -233,16 +233,8 @@

  

  == License for binary packages

  

- Since Rust applications are statically linked and contain code from all their dependencies,

- the effective license for the subpackage containing the built binary

- must be calculated from the individual licenses of all dependencies.

- 

- The `+rust2rpm+` project provides a https://pagure.io/fedora-rust/rust2rpm/blob/main/f/tools/fedora-helper.py[helper script]

- that can be used to obtain a list of Licenses of all real crate dependencies,

- excluding dependencies that are only required at build-time or for running tests.

- 

- Both the list of individual licenses *and* the `License` tag with the effective license

- MUST be included in the subpackage that contains the statically linked binary.

+ See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field.adoc[License: field in Spec file] guidance specific to Rust.

+  

  

  == Miscellaneous

  

Updating to a link to new License: field pages in Fedora docs

relates to #1142

Signed-off-by: Jilayne Lovejoy

Note that the mentioned "helper script" is unmaintained and should no longer be used, so I'd rather drop that paragraph entirely until we have a new solution.

I'm also unsure whether it's actually worth mentioning Rust specifically. It's just like all other ecosystems with statically linked binaries, and the paragraph that's in the Rust Packaging Guidelines is basically just a reminder of that. I'd rather have it point to a generic section of the legal docs concerning statically linked programs, since Rust isn't special here.

1 new commit added

  • fix link to license field guideline
2 years ago

fixed link and made it go to the general page on License: field guidelines.

Also have removed the info about the helper script from the licensing page, we can always add it back later if something changes

this is ready to merge

rebased onto 3e57249

2 years ago

Pull-Request has been merged by tibbs

2 years ago

yeah, that would be precise, but it is the same page and one still needs to read the general guidance, so... one way or the other is not wrong

Metadata