License of .spec files

[Tom "spot" Callaway]

On Sun, 2007-08-19 at 09:49 +0200, Marek Mahut wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> I have a question, probably for spot, what's the license of .spec file
> it-self? Is it under license of a product or indirectly signed by CLA?
> Is it a good idea to include the license specification about the spec
> file in the .spec file?

FWIW, licensing the .spec files never made much sense to me.

1. There's very little original copyrightable work in a spec file.
2. The license of the spec file itself would have nothing to do with the
contents of the RPM, other than that the spec file would also be
included as a separate file inside the RPM. So, the spec file is not
automatically under the same license as the bits being packaged up.
3. Is it indirectly signed by the CLA? More like directly.

<CLA?

You hereby grant to Red Hat, Inc., on behalf of the Project, and to
recipients of software distributed by the Project: 

a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free,
irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of,
publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute your
Contribution and such derivative works;

</CLA>

Since spec files would fall within your Contribution, anyone getting
them from Fedora can reproduce, make derived works of, display, publicly
perform ("A Tale Of Two Spec Files"), sublicense, and distribute them
freely.

There really is no need to sublicense the spec files, but you're
permitted to do so if you're so motivated. I highly suggest that you do
not, because it will confuse others.

~spot