[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: License of .spec files

On 19.08.2007 15:52, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> 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.

Well, some spec files can be quite complex. More complex than some small
scripts that come with a copyright notice that often is longer than the
script-part itself.

> 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.

+1 -- I'd say if we license them then the maintainer or Fedora as a
whole should pick a license for their spec files.

> 3. Is it indirectly signed by the CLA? More like directly.[...]

Maybe, but that's not obvious to outside parties. Let's say a outside
3rd party that maintains a public rpm-repo wants to pick up a Fedora
package and its spec file for its repo. Then that 3rd party repo wants
to be sure that Fedora doesn't sue them today or in the future for
taking Fedora's spec file. Explicitly licensing our spec files would
make would solve this problem -- currently it's more a grey area.

IOW: I think putting a short license text in the spec files (e.g. this
is "Public Domain" or "licensed as WTFPL" ) would be a good idea.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]