#1 Correct the license
Opened 16 days ago by bowlofeggs. Modified a day ago
rpms/ bowlofeggs/rust-rpick update-license  into  master

Correct the license
Randy Barlow • 16 days ago  
file modified
+7 -2

@@ -5,11 +5,13 @@ 

  

  Name:           rust-%{crate}

  Version:        0.4.0

- Release:        3%{?dist}

+ Release:        4%{?dist}

  Summary:        Helps you pick items from a list by various algorithms

  

  # Upstream license specification: GPL-3.0

- License:        GPLv3

+ # The binary license is the combination of rpick's license and all of its dependencies. You can use

+ # cargo-license to find these: https://github.com/onur/cargo-license

+ License:        GPLv3 and Apache-2.0 and BSD-2 and CC0-1.0 and ISC and MIT

  URL:            https://crates.io/crates/rpick

  Source:         %{crates_source}

  # Initial patched metadata

@@ -86,6 +88,9 @@ 

  %endif

  

  %changelog

+ * Mon Nov 18 2019 Randy Barlow <bowlofeggs@fedoraproject.org> - 0.4.0-4

+ - Correct the license to reflect the licenses of all dependencies, as they are bundled.

+ 

  * Fri Jul 26 2019 Fedora Release Engineering <releng@fedoraproject.org> - 0.4.0-3

  - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Mass_Rebuild

  

The license needs to reflect the licenses of all dependencies, as
they are bundled in the resulting binary.

Signed-off-by: Randy Barlow randy@electronsweatshop.com

rebased onto 7730e9e

16 days ago

Hmmm, while I understand what you mean, I don't think we need to do this. I believe we don't do this with static linking for C.

I would appreciate if you could ask legal about this.

Hi @ignatenkobrain,

The text that made me think this was necessary was this:

The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary rpm.

from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License:_field

It does say "when it doubt, ask", so I've posted here:

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/YLVE7SWR4U273HBC42UT6E2ZFSS3YJGE/

This is one of the many reasons I am not a fan of statically linked binaries, but yes, please list the licenses of all of the code inside the static binary.