9:55 a.m.
Hello,
during a package review I came across this License tag (simplified):
License: ((Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause) AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT)
Where "(Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause" is a license of one
"unit" built
into the RPM and "Apache-2.0 OR MIT" is a license of another "unit".
(Both
units are built into a single binary if that makes a difference.)
Do I change that to:
License: (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause
Or not?
I know that we are not supposed to calculate "effective license", but in my
head they both mean the exact same thing.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
10:34 a.m.
New subject: Do I merge "(A AND B) AND A" into "A AND B" or not?
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 10:55 AM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hello,
during a package review I came across this License tag (simplified):
License: ((Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause) AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT)
Where "(Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause" is a license of one
"unit" built
into the RPM and "Apache-2.0 OR MIT" is a license of another "unit".
(Both
units are built into a single binary if that makes a difference.)
Do I change that to:
License: (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause
Or not?
I know that we are not supposed to calculate "effective license", but in my
head they both mean the exact same thing.
I guess this isn't explicitly addressed here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/
We do say:
"The license expression must reflect the disjunctive license choice
even if one or both of the license identifiers in the OR expression
also appear separately in the composite license expression."
and
"A single license identifier should only appear once in an "AND"
expression regardless of how many distinct source or binary components
the corresponding license covers for the relevant binary RPM."
and also the example:
"Example: bar.rpm contains three executable utility programs. You’ve
determined that two of them are each licensed under GPL version 2
only, while the third is licensed under the MIT license. The spec file
would have:
License: GPL-2.0-only AND MIT
It would not be GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-2.0-only AND MIT, even though
from an orthodox GPL interpretation standpoint there are two separate
GPL-licensed "Programs" in this package."
I think the debatable decision not to attempt to reflect sub-RPM
"units" is key.
So I think it follows from that that complex SPDX expressions should
only appear once in a larger AND expression.
At any rate, I think that's what the rule should be, so in your case,
((Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause) AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT)
should just be represented as
(Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause
However, I think something like this:
(Apache-2.0 OR MIT OR Unlicense) AND BSD-3-Clause AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT)
would not "reduce" to
(Apache-2.0 OR MIT OR Unlicense) AND BSD-3-Clause
or
(Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause
because we are stubbornly adhering to the view that it is useful to
reflect all disjunctive license expressions (if only because this was
a convention in the Callaway system).
Note: we are making these policies up, since the SPDX spec (rightly)
does not attempt to address any of it and outside of Fedora, uses of
SPDX expressions for project/package license metadata are extremely
primitive and unsophisticated at present, so there are no useful
practices or conventions for Fedora to draw upon.
Richard
10:41 a.m.
New subject: Do I merge "(A AND B) AND A" into "A AND B" or not?
On 04. 04. 23 17:34, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 10:55 AM Miro Hrončok
<mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> during a package review I came across this License tag (simplified):
>
> License: ((Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause) AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT)
>
> Where "(Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause" is a license of one
"unit" built
> into the RPM and "Apache-2.0 OR MIT" is a license of another
"unit". (Both
> units are built into a single binary if that makes a difference.)
>
> Do I change that to:
>
> License: (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause
>
> Or not?
>
> I know that we are not supposed to calculate "effective license", but in
my
> head they both mean the exact same thing.
I guess this isn't explicitly addressed here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/
We do say:
...
At any rate, I think that's what the rule should be, so in your case,
((Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause) AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT)
should just be represented as
(Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause
That was my understanding/opinion as well.
However, I think something like this:
(Apache-2.0 OR MIT OR Unlicense) AND BSD-3-Clause AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT)
would not "reduce" to
(Apache-2.0 OR MIT OR Unlicense) AND BSD-3-Clause
or
(Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause
because we are stubbornly adhering to the view that it is useful to
reflect all disjunctive license expressions (if only because this was
a convention in the Callaway system).
Same here.
Note: we are making these policies up, since the SPDX spec (rightly)
does not attempt to address any of it and outside of Fedora, uses of
SPDX expressions for project/package license metadata are extremely
primitive and unsophisticated at present, so there are no useful
practices or conventions for Fedora to draw upon.
Understood.
Thanks,
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
10:54 a.m.
On 04. 04. 23 16:55, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hello,
during a package review I came across this License tag (simplified):
License: ((Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause) AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT)
Where "(Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause" is a license of one
"unit" built
into the RPM and "Apache-2.0 OR MIT" is a license of another "unit".
(Both
units are built into a single binary if that makes a difference.)
Do I change that to:
License: (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause
Or not?
I know that we are not supposed to calculate "effective license", but in my
head they both mean the exact same thing.
For clarity, this is the actual case:
https://git.sr.ht/~gotmax23/fedora-python-orjson/tree/b823cdba3e42ea2d7b0...
License: (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND (Apache-2.0 OR BSL-1.0) AND ((Apache-2.0 OR
MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause) AND Apache-2.0
I suggested to turn it into:
License: (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND (Apache-2.0 OR BSL-1.0) AND BSD-3-Clause AND
Apache-2.0
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
388
days inactive
388
days old
3 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Miro Hrončok -
Richard Fontana