Why is the devel package "GPL-2.0-or-later OR LGPL-2.1-or-later"? It contains files from include/rpm and those are "GPL-2.0-or-later". It also contains files from other directories that are not "OR LGPL-2.1-or-later".

I also wonder why plugins are GPL-or-LGPL? Is it because they include a header from lib/? In that case we should probably move the header (upstream) instead, because there's no intention of having the plugins LGPL'ed.

Why is the devel package "GPL-2.0-or-later OR LGPL-2.1-or-later"? It contains files from include/rpm and those are "GPL-2.0-or-later". It also contains files from other directories that are not "OR LGPL-2.1-or-later".

??? in the devel package I actually removed the License tag. So the devel package should be under the same license as the main package. That is GPL-2.0-or-later

I also wonder why plugins are GPL-or-LGPL? Is it because they include a header from lib/?

Yes. If I am interpreting COPYING correctly, then lib/* is under "GPL-2.0-or-later OR LGPL-2.1-or-later" So the plugins should be either under this license or "GPL-2.0-or-later AND (GPL-2.0-or-later OR LGPL-2.1-or-later)" - not sure which one, but I think it does not matter too much either.

in the devel package I actually removed the License tag. So the devel package should be under the same license as the main package. That is GPL-2.0-or-later

OK. I don't recall what I wrote what I wrote. It has been 3 months.

Ping @pmatilai

The plugins, and librpmbuild and librpmsign, which are explicitly not under the LGPL exception, are merely linking to librpm, just using some internal-only interfaces at that. I fail to see how linking to an (optionally) LGPL library can force that more relaxed library on anything. The other way around, yes.

I don't understand or agree so I can't merge this. If somebody else thinks they know better and pushes the button, be my guest, I'm not going to touch it.

To elaborate a bit, the intent of the exception is explicitly stated in the license:

This alternative is provided to enable applications to be linked against
the RPM library (commonly called librpm) without forcing such applications
to be distributed under the GPL.

In my layman terms, that means librpm and anything required to link to it are available as GPL/LGPL dual license, everything else is GPL only, and never mind the bollocks [1]. That is why this all seems so wrong to me. Mind you, many of the existing License tags are wrong under the same principle, a whole pile of sub-packages has gotten split off with copy-pasted licenses.

[1] Such as forgetting to update the license while reorganizing the repository, the most recent such cases being moving all public headers under include/ directory (which now contains files with two different licenses) and rpmhash.* moving from lib/ to misc/.

So, to put the intent of the license into practictise would be simply:

For the main rpm package:
License: GPL-2.0-or-later

For rpm-libs and rpm-devel:
License: GPL-2.0-or-later OR LGPL-2.1-or-later

...and delete all the rest to let them inherit the main license. Allegedly rpm-devel has both kinds of licenses but that's a moot point, the headers themselves aren't interesting, the libraries are.

Updated.

This was conflicting on a whitespace issue so I applied manually. Thanks!

Thank you.

This was conflicting on a whitespace issue so I applied manually. Thanks!

I don't think this was ever applied at all (or it was reverted). The License tags in the rawhide spec file are not SPDX.

Reopening to avoid being forgotten.

Oh, this was only ever applied to the F39 branch apparently. We should apply it to rawhide as well then.

Ugh, case of me driving with half lights then. Cherry-picked to rawhide now, and thanks @churchyard for noticing + kicking.