LGTM

I see "%doc LICENSE.txt" in the specfile. Should we/Can we add "LICENSES_bundled.txt" as well?
https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/master/LICENSES_bundled.txt

LGTM. I just had a comment about %doc.

I like to have a second opinion here whether the license tag is actually correct.

LGTM. I just had a comment about %doc.

Miro asked me to elaborate how I did the review.

• "- License: BSD and LGPLv2+" removal is correct
• Replacing "License: BSD and Boost and Public Domain" with "License: BSD and MIT and Boost" looks more accurate, since scipy is a pile of code with various licenses. I'm trusting https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/master/LICENSE.txt and https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/master/LICENSES_bundled.txt since it comes from upstream.

"License: BSD and MIT and Boost" is "good" but not 100% accurate, since scipy really has a long lists of licenses variants. For example, "BSD" is vague: there are "2-Clause BSD" and "3-Clause BSD"... but scipy has both :-) Example: doc/sphinxext/numpydoc/* uses 2-clause BSD, whereas scipy/special/cephes/* uses 3-clause BSD.

I'm not an expert on licenses: this PR elaborates the License field, it's better than previously. As soon as we ship the licenses, I think that we are good.

Note that in Fedora, all BSD licenses are listed simply as "BSD". See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main

Note that in Fedora, all BSD licenses are listed simply as "BSD". See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main

True but there is some license very similar to BSD with advertising and that is another viable short name.

Files: scipy/special/cephes/dd_*.[ch]
License: modified BSD license ("BSD-LBNL-License.doc")
...
(3) Neither the name of the University of California, Lawrence
  Berkeley National Laboratory, U.S. Dept. of Energy nor the names
  of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
  derived from this software without specific prior written
  permission.

I see "%doc LICENSE.txt" in the specfile. Should we/Can we add "LICENSES_bundled.txt" as well?
https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/master/LICENSES_bundled.txt

seems that licenses of bundled projects get copied to LICENSE.txt of scipy.

https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/347247f5814512746a68ae95c0a844aa842677b8/MANIFEST.in#L32

I trust the LICENSES_bundled.txt too. There is a lot of licenses that are copied in source files. If understood correctly the Boost license doesn't require copies of itself if in the distribution contains only compiled code of project. I think that every license(BSD and MIT) from LICENSES_bundled.txt get copied to LICENSE.txt of project. I didn't verify if the LICENSES_bundled.txt contains all licenses that needs to have copies in distribution, grep -ri "copyright" has really huge output. I didn't check if the logic license expression MIT and BSD because I don't understand it.

do we keep bundling those? in that case yes, and they should also be provided as bundled()

Note that in Fedora, all BSD licenses are listed simply as "BSD". See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main

True but there is some license very similar to BSD with advertising and that is another viable short name.
Files: scipy/special/cephes/dd_*.[ch]
License: modified BSD license ("BSD-LBNL-License.doc")
...
(3) Neither the name of the University of California, Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, U.S. Dept. of Energy nor the names
of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
derived from this software without specific prior written
permission.

rephrase:
Yes, x clause BSD licenses are using just BSD short name. But license from cephes has also something about advertising. Which is very similar to this template at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#BSDwithAdvertising and this subtype of BSD has this short name BSD with advertising

IMHO license tag should look something like: BSD and BSD with advertising and Boost and Public Domain

do we keep bundling those? in that case yes, and they should also be provided as bundled()

Yes.

Issues which would be good to solve but not in this PR:
- There are bundled libraries
- rpm package doesn't contain usr/share/licenses folder. License text is in usr/share/doc
- package carries tests of bundled libraries which contains a lot of copyrights
- we might also copy copyright's of code under BOOST to some file.

I've opened https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/scipy/pull-request/14 -- that removes the biggest problem.

I've decided to abandon this effort. I am an engineer, not a lawyer.