[Fedora-legal-list] Re: API change and License change: python-ezdxf 0.18
Thank you. As you guessed, the expression was constructed based on the practices for
multiple separable components that I am accustomed to from the old guidelines. I hadn’t
quite understood that the new guidelines treat that situation differently. In that case, I
agree with your suggested expression, and I will update the PR before merging.
– Ben Beasley
On Sat, Jul 30, 2022, at 6:04 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 11:44 AM Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net> wrote:
>>
>> In python-ezdxf 0.18, a few new Python modules are included that are
>> derived from other software. The License is therefore no longer simply
>> “MIT.” Of the new modules in question, one is a fork of its original
>> upstream. I have treated it as a bundled dependency, adding the
>> appropriate virtual Provides. The others are full rewrites from
>> different languages; the licenses of the original projects still affect
>> the ezdxf License, but I have not treated them as bundled dependencies
>> since no code is copied from the original projects. See the comments in
>> the spec file above the License field if the details matter to you.
>>
>> In classic “Calloway” notation, the new License field would become:
>>
>> MIT and (ISC and MIT) and (AGPLv3 and MIT)
>>
>> However, I am taking the opportunity to convert the package to SPDX, and
>> so the License will become:
>>
>> (MIT AND (ISC AND MIT) AND (AGPL-3.0-only AND MIT))
>
> Under our new License: field guidelines, a simple license expression
> (just a license identifier, basically) wouldn't get repeated in a
> conjunctive composite expression, even if it applies to multiple
> separable components, and there ordinarily would be no reason to wrap
> AND subexpressions in parentheses. I haven't looked at this package
> but it might be that the License: field should be:
>
> MIT AND ISC AND AGPL-3.0-only
>
> See:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_conjunctive_an...
>
> Richard