Comment # 201 on bug 1082318 from Fabian Vogt

(In reply to Kristoffer Gronlund from comment #200)
> This is the document I read:
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/
> Use_license_macro_in_RPMs_for_packages_in_Cloud_Image
> 
> >Use new %license macro to separate license files from documentation, so the latter can be excluded from container images without stripping license information which must be included.
>
> I may be mistaken in saying that this was the original intention of the
> %license directive. In that case, instead of just the %doc directive being
> repurposed for reducing the size of cloud images, the same applies to
> %license. Though I find the license violation argument to smell of post-hoc
> reasoning after the idea of using nodocs to reduce the installation size was
> raised, of course I am not a lawyer. Unfortunately the pull request link in
> the commit which introduces the change no longer links correctly, so it's
> hard to follow the chain all the way back:
> 
> https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/
> 55bf9abee25c7d101dce15898ebefcbe77a7d655

%license also allows for stuff like "rpm -qL aaa_base".(In reply to Kristoffer
Gronlund from comment #200)
> (In reply to Fabian Vogt from comment #199)
> > (In reply to Kristoffer Gronlund from comment #198)
> > > (In reply to Fabian Vogt from comment #197)
> > > > (In reply to Kristoffer Gronlund from comment #196)
> > > > > Is it too late to object to this change, which is completely misguided?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Instead of breaking every single package by changing the meaning of
> > > > > "excludedocs" to mean "let me strip these files from the package", how about
> > > > > adding support for tagging files in an rpm as strippable or optional, so
> > > > > that not only documentation can be dropped when space is at a premium, but
> > > > > any other files that may not be essential for the functionality?
> > > > 
> > > > That's what optional subpackages are for though.
> > > > 
> > > > > That way, every single package would still be OK even without any markup,
> > > > > and packages can be updated to mark files as optional over time. Instead,
> > > > > this %license macro now means that all packages that have used %doc to tag
> > > > > the LICENSE file somehow violate the GPL.
> > > > 
> > > > That excludedocs means that files tagged as %doc are not installed is
> > > > absolutely set in stone and will not change.
> > > 
> > > I have no problem whatsoever with excludedocs meaning that files tagged as
> > > %doc are not installed.
> > > 
> > > I have a problem with excludedocs being used in a way that breaks the
> > > existing intention and usage of the %doc tag in spec files.
> > 
> > That's not the case. Marking license files as %doc is what broke intention
> > here.
> 
> My point is that license files were being marked as %doc before the %license
> directive existed. It looks to me like this only became a concern when the
> idea of stripping docs from packages in order to make them smaller came up,
> and this is what I object to.

You object to the concept of excludedocs in general, right? That would be an
entirely separate topic though, this bug is about migration to %license for
license files.

> > > Whoever thought
> > > that using excludedocs to strip packages for inclusion in containers was a
> > > good idea was evidently wrong about that, as it required the introduction of
> > > the %license tag, so that there are now two useless tags: Not only can %doc
> > > no longer be used to simply mark up documentation files as intended because
> > > it's being subverted to mean something it did not do before, but the only
> > > reason %license exists is as a hack to work around the previously mentioned
> > > hack.
> > 
> > That is not true. Please read up on what %license means and does.
> 
> This is the document I read:
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/
> Use_license_macro_in_RPMs_for_packages_in_Cloud_Image
> 
> >Use new %license macro to separate license files from documentation, so the latter can be excluded from container images without stripping license information which must be included.
> 
> I may be mistaken in saying that this was the original intention of the
> %license directive. In that case, instead of just the %doc directive being
> repurposed

%doc is meant to allow for exactly that, skipping installation of
documentation. That licenses were marked as %doc was just wrong. That's also
what the commit you linked below states.

> for reducing the size of cloud images, the same applies to
> %license. Though I find the license violation argument to smell of post-hoc
> reasoning after the idea of using nodocs to reduce the installation size was
> raised, of course I am not a lawyer. Unfortunately the pull request link in
> the commit which introduces the change no longer links correctly, so it's
> hard to follow the chain all the way back:
> 
> https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/
> 55bf9abee25c7d101dce15898ebefcbe77a7d655

The biggest motivation for migration to %license is indeed to make sure that
installations with excludedocs do not violate software licenses. That's not the
only reason for %license though, it also allows to query the individual license
files of packages and to ensure that every package ships its license file.
Without %license that is not possible.