Thank you for elaborating. But unfortunately, the only thing this
definitely answers is that I can "ignore" the license file for the
moment. But how to proceed?
One thing to note about the package is that in ideal world, it would not
exist, because either 1) the file would be included and shipped by RPM
or even better 2) the file would not be needed, because there are other
ways to implement this functionality in RPM [1]. I want to submit this
to upstream, but upstream is not responsible to this issue :/ So would
it make things simple, if the package have the same license as RPM, i.e.
`GPLv2+`.
Don't forget that part of my question was if the content is
copyrightable and with the context above, if it was shipped directly by
RPM, the answer would probably be yes.
Vít
[1]
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/782#issuecomment-17...
Dne 16. 10. 23 v 17:53 Richard Fontana napsal(a):
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 11:01 AM Vít Ondruch
<vondruch(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have submitted rpm-local-generator-support package for a review [1]. It can't
be simpler:
>
>
https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/vondruch/public_git/rpm-local-generator-sup...
>
> It essentially just creates empty file and places it into directory structure. I have
used `License: MIT` tag, because what else.
This reminds me of some packages that used "Public domain" under the
Callaway system in the less typical sense of "true" public domain. For
one example, see:
https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/347 where
I suggest the use of `LicenseRef-Not-Copyrightable`. This is not
currently in the fedora-license-data set of licenses, but it is used
in fedora-license-data itself as part of its attempt to conform the
repository to the REUSE specification. where REUSE would generally
recommend the use of CC0-1.0.
I have been assuming that License tags cannot be empty under Fedora
packaging rules (the legal docs are silent on this currently) or that
non-empty License tags are enforced by certain tools.
For policy reasons, I wouldn't recommend using the MIT license (or
CC0) but I wouldn't be surprised to learn there are similar packages
that use MIT, GPLv2, etc.
Whether a package that says it's under "MIT" has to or should ship the
license file is a mostly separate question. Under the Callaway system
there was an expectation that Fedora should "correct" the omission of
license files by upstream projects. The current Fedora legal
documentation deliberately avoids the whole topic of license files
because last year we wanted to move ahead with the new guidelines
around SPDX identifiers and so forth without waiting to figure out how
to deal with license files, and we still haven't figured that out.
The default Fedora license for spec files is the MIT license by virtue
of the FPCA (which Fedora should get rid of). Even if the spec file in
this case is covered by the MIT license it would not mean the package
itself is covered by the MIT license. The FPCA wouldn't even reach the
case of a package like this one if you accept the position that the
contents of the package are not copyrightable.
Richard
> But the package review correctly pointed out that I should also ship the license
file, which would substantially complicate everything. And now I wonder, is there even
anything what would be licensable? Is the empty file created somewhere in the directory
structure worth of anything? Can the License tag be omitted and would the file be covered
by the default Fedora license for .spec files?
>
>
> Vít
>