Can you clarify what you are asking here?

That all spec files be modified to note licensing in a comment at the top or something?

Or in the changelog entries somehow?

Or that we say all of them are under the MIT license no matter what?

That all spec files be modified to note licensing in a comment at the top or something?

Yes, exactly.

Something like

{{{

spec file for foo-bar

License: MIT

http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

}}}

Or that we say all of them are under the MIT license no matter what?

I think this is already the situation with current FPCA.

Replying to [comment:2 remi]:

Or that we say all of them are under the MIT license no matter what?

I think this is already the situation with current FPCA.

It's not. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#License_of_Fedora_SPEC_Files

spec files can have a explicit license on them if the contributor wishes them to be something different from MIT. So for example, I could put some spec file I wrote explicitly under the GPLv3 if I wanted.

It seems like needless churn to me to add a note to all spec files about the license and then try and make sure it stays there moving forward.

In the case you mention you were able to talk to the person and they realized the licensing and added a note, yes?

We don't need to explicitly add license information in spec files. As Kevin pointed above we already have license information for Fedora spec files. Good to point someone to that link then.

I see that for the reported issue here, upstream of redis28u has taken action in commit https://github.com/iuscommunity-pkg/redis28u/commit/b024e021ac6c5025bdf8c6d1012077aa60c5d8d0

I won't be able to attend today's meeting.

I'm not a fan of modifying all the existing SPECs to include the license. It also seems like not needed any more, since the original issue was resolved.

Even with the explicit license in the SPEC file you would have to notify the third-party project to include the credit to Fedora Project if they didn't do so from the start. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the change would not improve the situation much.

I'm -1 on adding the explicit note into existing SPECs. Although I would be OK with requiring the explicit license for new packages, but I'm not sure if something like this should be rather approved by FPC.

Yeah, -1 ''if'' neither legal nor anyone else brings up a new argument to suggest that the default license is unsatisfactory because not giving permission in the spec file implies something else. (AFAIK not giving permission defaults to copyright prohibiting everything, so the default license is valid and enforceable.)

From today's FESCo meeting:

• AGREED: Explict mandatory spec file licenses are not required (jwb, 18:48:15)