I am preparing to update python-ezdxf from 0.17.2 to 0.18[1]. Since there are some small API changes, the update will be for Rawhide only, and I will wait one week (2022-08-06) to merge and build the PR. However, this should not affect any other packages, since the sole dependent package is python-trimesh and I have already confirmed it is not affected by the API changes.
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))
In accordance with the updated requirements for license changes, I have directed this message to both the devel list and the legal list.
– Ben Beasley
[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-ezdxf/pull-request/1
On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 11:44 AM Ben Beasley code@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_and_l...
Richard
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@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_and_l...
Richard
-
Ben Beasley -
Richard Fontana