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

[Greg DeKoenigsberg]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Jeff Spaleta wrote:

> Is it ethically wrong for me as a Fedora packager to take an existing
> spec file without an explicit license from another location as the
> base for the spec file I plan to submit for review?  The pit of my
> stomach says no.
>
> Is it ethically wrong for me to do so without giving credit to the
> original spec file author?
>
> The pit of my stomach says most likely.
>
> What is the best way to give credit when re-basing the spec file for
> fedora submission?
>
> Well off the top of my head, I can do it in the changelog entry for
> the specfile or I can do it in the cvs commit entry.  Is either one
> better than the other? And if there is a best practices method can we
> make it part of the new submission checklist procedures to remind new
> contributors that giving credit where credit is due for the spec file
> helps make for healthier community relations?

Seems like most people agree with this.

Simple policy decision, then, designed to deal with unlicensed, and 
therefore presumably public domain, spec files:  "If you take a spec file 
from someone else, be sure that attribution is included.  If it is *not* 
included, include the following text: 'based on a specfile by <foo> at the 
<bar> project.' If you don't do this, you're a schmuck, and the punishment 
is to (a) fix it immediately, and (b) wear the Hat of Schmuck."  And yes, 
put it in the review process.

As far as actual licensing goes, I still think it's a matter for Spot. 
Attribution is pretty much implicit in every licensing scheme anywhere 
anyway.

--g

(And no, I don't have a Hat of Schmuck handy.  But I might be able to fit 
one in my budget.)

-- 
Greg DeKoenigsberg
Community Development Manager
Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255
"To whomsoever much hath been given...
...from him much shall be asked"