Hello Detlef, Am Montag, 13. April 2020, 19:18:53 CEST schrieb Detlef Steuer:
Starting sometime ago I see lots of failed builds due to license strings not valid for exactly SLE_15_SP1, giving no problems whatever for other releases, especially not Leap_15.2.
I'm talking about devel:languages:R:released, where a lot of packages from CRAN are (semi-)automatically built.
One such package is R-acepack.
The spec file says:
License: MIT + file LICENSE
Packaging practice should be to use a license string that is listed in https://spdx.org/licenses/, as you pointed out below. Additionally there is a tag for the %files section where you should place the license file: %license COPYING or %license LICENSE, whatever it is called.
On CRAN that seems popular and up to now we had no problems with that. Most of the failing packages use exactly this license. The authors use a blank MIT license and add a file with just the copyright holders names etc.
There is a difference between license and copyright(-holders)! If in doubt, act as described here: https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines#Licensing and ask SUSE legal for advice.
What is the intended reaction as a packager?
I would like to keep the License specified as intended by upstream. Essentially this is MIT, so it should definitely be ok for OBS. Of course (?) there is no such entry in https://spdx.org/licenses/
Thx for any hints.
HTH Axel -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org