Am Samstag, 4. Februar 2012 schrieb Nelson Marques:
A license regarding the spec file? It's the first time I see this one comming...
It's not really new - the only difference is that in the past a "default" license header  was added silently(!) when you submitted to Factory. (Which I didn't really like because it claimed a copyright for SUSE - even if nobody @suse.com ever touched the specfile.)
Now things seem to have changed and you can - and have to - define the spec license yourself.
Can it be CC-NC-SA 3.0 ? As I consider a spec file a work of art :)
The usual way is to use the same license as the package has (except for non-OSS packages), but I don't see a real problem with using a CC license.
However, the NC part might be a problem because it makes the license not-so-free. (SUSE could see problems if they decide to include your package in SLES/SLED, which is probably considered "commercial".)
CC-SA should be OK - if not, the factory legal review will tell you ;-)
Final note: IANAL ;-)
If you want a better answer, please ask on the firstname.lastname@example.org mailinglist. That's the list for discussing legal issues, and no, I have no idea who invented that name.
 something like this:
# # spec file for package postfixadmin # # Copyright (c) 2012 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Nuernberg, Germany. # # All modifications and additions to the file contributed by third parties # remain the property of their copyright owners, unless otherwise agreed # upon. The license for this file, and modifications and additions to the # file, is the same license as for the pristine package itself (unless the # license for the pristine package is not an Open Source License, in which # case the license is the MIT License). An "Open Source License" is a # license that conforms to the Open Source Definition (Version 1.9) # published by the Open Source Initiative.
# Please submit bugfixes or comments via http://bugs.opensuse.org/ #