Am Tue, 14 Apr 2020 10:25:08 +0200
schrieb Thorsten Kukuk <kukuk(a)suse.de>de>:
On Mon, Apr 13, Detlef Steuer wrote:
The spec file says:
License: MIT + file LICENSE
Ok, this license entry doesn't really make any sense.
Please, think about, for which reasons does RPM have this field?
That a user can check the license of a package if it is OK for him
without downloading the sources and look into them.
Well, I agree, but we are talking about thousends of packages.
If you look into these packages they all choose a blank MIT
license and a file with personal information about the license owner.
No idea who invented that kind of license specification, but it
is used in the wild.
Now, RPM tells the user that the package is MIT and that the user
needs to look into the LICENSE file. In the LICENSE file could be
some for the user very important informations, so he has to
download the RPM or Sources, search for the LICENSE file and need
to read that.
Doesn't make any sense, in this case, you could also remove the
License tag from RPM.
I agree, but no way to change upstream.
What is the
intended reaction as a packager?
Fix your spec file and provide the relevant informatins, don't point
the user to the package or sources.
That would mean we lose the CRAN ecosystem as a whole.
Debian and Fedora handle that problem somehow.
I would like
to keep the License specified as intended by upstream.
Essentially this is MIT, so it should definitely be ok for OBS.
Who tells you that the LICENSE file does not contian restrictions?
If it is only MIT, remove the "+ file LICENSE", if that does not
contain anything relevant.
For me that clearly is "MIT", but IANAL, and don't want to
interpret whatever upstream put in that field. I just quote
whatever they have chosen.
(At the core I rely on CRAN to check the usefuleness of the license
Thx for your feedback
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org