permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 19:51 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 26.09.2007 18:24, Karsten Wade wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 17:01 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > 
> >> Further questions arise from Fedora maintainers reusing/modifying
> >> upstream specs and/or specs from other origins (e.g. other distros). 
> >> They can be covered by other copyrights/licenses (e.g. the GPL).
> > Since spec files are specific to RPM packaging, could it be better if
> > rpm.org set the standard?  It could be a bigger first step toward all
> > sources of spec files being license compatible.
> 
> Different projects and contributors might want to put spec files under
> different licenses, so I don't like that idea to much.
Right, but it's out of your influence.

My view on this: 
* rpmbuild is kind of a compiler. 
* specs are written in a programming language
* specs are rpmbuild's input/sources files, covered by a licensing of
their own.


That said, I consider
* src.rpms to be combined works, combining 
- "sources", i.e. subject to upstream's licensing/copyright.
- specs, being covered by licensing of its own.
- modifications to "sources" (e.g. patches). 
These are required to be covered by a licensing which is compatible to
"sources". It they are inlined in specs, the specs also must be covered
by a license compatible to "sources" upstream.


* binary rpms to be derived works from "sources" upstream and "spec"
upstream.
=> Both licenses must be compatible.

> rpm.org on the other hand could guide everyone and provide a "sane
> default" maybe.
IMO, this would be as questionable as a text processor writing a
guide-line on text documents or a compiler doing the same on
programs/libraries.

Setting a "default" or letting using "rpm.org's rpmbuild" imply a
license on specs would be fairly silly and counterproductive, IMO.

Instead, I'd prefer if *.specs were considered source files as any other
source files, i.e. "intellectual property" of their authors with all
common legal strings attached to it.

May-be it would be helpful, if Fedora's EULA was added a sentence
stating a default license. Say, something similar to "unless otherwise
stated, Fedora *.specs are considered to be licensed <to be
specified>". 

Ralf