Hello,
Q: Is it needed to explicitly list (or pack) license (files) of a library that a package bundles? [1] And if yes, what's the right way to do so?
The built package only contain 1 binary (and it's manpage and license file). In this case - when no sources are packed - I'd understand that it is sufficient to list and pack only the single license of the resulting project. Is that correct?
--
The package is 'pgloader' and it is now on a review to enter Fedora. [2]
--
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/Li...
[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748233
--
Michal Schorm Software Engineer Core Services - Databases Team Red Hat
--
On 2019-09-18, Michal Schorm mschorm@redhat.com wrote:
Is it needed to explicitly list (or pack) license (files) of a library that a package bundles? [1]
If the bundled library code is part of the binary package, then yes, you need to list and to package the license.
And if yes, what's the right way to do so?
The same as for a nonbundled code. There is no distinction whether the code is original or borrowed from a different upstream.
-- Petr
Michal Schorm wrote:
Hello,
Q: Is it needed to explicitly list (or pack) license (files) of a library that a package bundles? [1] And if yes, what's the right way to do so?
The built package only contain 1 binary (and it's manpage and license file). In this case - when no sources are packed - I'd understand that it is sufficient to list and pack only the single license of the resulting project. Is that correct?
I think this faq should cover it: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22...
In short, you have the option of either tracking the single aggregate/combined-work (effective) license, or listing licenses of individual components.
-- Rex