### rpms / scipy

#### #13 Update the license tag to reflect reality Opened a month ago by churchyard. Modified 11 days ago rpms/ churchyard/scipy license  into  master

 @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@  - # without means enabled + # with means disabled  %bcond_with doc + # WARNING: when enabling, check the license of the documentation + # in scipy 1.3.1, there is some Apache licensed mathjax    # Set to pre-release version suffix if building pre-release, else %%{nil}  %global rcver %{nil} @@ -7,12 +9,24 @@   Summary: Scientific Tools for Python  Name: scipy  Version: 1.3.1 - Release: 1%{?dist} + Release: 2%{?dist}    # BSD -- whole package except: - # Boost -- scipy/special/cephes/scipy_iv.c - # Public Domain -- scipy/odr/__odrpack.c - License: BSD and Boost and Public Domain + # MIT: + # scipy/_lib/six.py + # scipy/cluster/_optimal_leaf_ordering.pyx + # scipy/io/idl.py + # scipy/optimize/tnc.py + # scipy/special/Faddeeva.* + # scipy/optimize/_shgo_lib/sobol_seq.py + # scipy/optimize/_trlib/ + # scipy/optimize/tnc/ + # Boost: + # scipy/special/cephes/igami.c + # scipy/special/cephes/lanczos.c + # scipy/special/cephes/owens_t.c + # scipy/special/cephes/scipy_iv.c + License: BSD and MIT and Boost vstinner commented a month agoI 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 churchyard commented 16 days agodo we keep bundling those? in that case yes, and they should also be provided as bundled()  Url: http://www.scipy.org/scipylib/index.html  Source0: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/releases/download/v%{version}/scipy-%{version}.tar.gz   @@ -185,6 +199,10 @@   %endif    %changelog + * Tue Nov 12 2019 Miro Hrončok - 1.3.1-2 + - Update the license tag to reflect reality + - Remove outdated license information from the Python 3 package +   * Fri Oct 18 2019 Miro Hrončok - 1.3.1-1  - Update to 1.3.1 (#1674101)  - Drop Python 2 packages (not supported by SciPy >= 1.3)

Also remove outdated license information from the Python 3 package.

LGTM

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

Miro asked me to elaborate how I did the review.

"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]
...
(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.


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]
...
(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.

rebased onto 089d6bd

11 days ago