On 27/05/2023 13:08, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> No, this information is outdated. Statically linked components must be
> taken into consideration, whether bundled or not.
I only found this:
> Some upstream projects bundle code copied from other upstream projects (a practice some communities sometimes call "vendoring"). In certain cases Fedora permits packaging of such projects including the bundled dependencies. In some other cases, a Fedora package may itself bundle dependencies that are not separately packaged in Fedora. In these cases, assuming the bundled dependencies are built or otherwise included in the packaged binary, the License: field must reflect the licenses covering the bundled code.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_bundled_or_vendored_dependencies
I can't find any information about packaged header-only libraries. Could
you post a link please?
"If your package is built from files under multiple distinct licenses, then the License: field must reflect this by using the AND operator."
This doesn't explicitly mention statically linked binaries / header-only libraries, but it's clear that this rule applies to these situations as well (after all, binaries *are* built from project sources that have distinct licenses). I don't see how C/C++ header-only libraries (or Go packages, fwiw) should be treated differently than Rust crates.
It would probably be better if the legal docs made this explicit, and made Rust no longer a special case. The fact that only Rust is called out is an artifact of this rule having been moved from the Rust Packaging Guidelines to the legal docs, but other languages that are in similar situations didn't even have guidelines for this case.
Fabio
PS: Sent from my phone, sorry for possibly bad formatting.