|Subject:||Request: Include License Text with the Source Files|
|Date:||Mon, 7 Oct 2019 09:44:52 -0700|
|To:||bug-WebService-MusicBrainz [...] rt.cpan.org|
|From:||"Gerald B. Cox" <gbcox [...] bzb.us>|
Hello, I'm packaging WebService-MusicBrainz to be shipped as part of the Fedora Distribution and upon package review noticed a license issue. If you would consider making the appropriate annotations it would be greatly appreciated. Here is a snippet from the Fedora Guidelines that explain the situation. If you have any questions please let me know. Thank you very much. If the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %license. If the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake. In cases where the upstream has chosen a license that requires that a copy of the license text be distributed along with the binaries and/or source code, but does not provide a copy of the license text (in the source tree, or in some rare cases, anywhere), the packager should do their best to point out this confusion to upstream. This sometimes occurs when an upstream project’s only reference to a license is in a README (where they simply say "licensed under the FOO license"), on their website, or when they simply do not check a copy of the license into their Source tree. Common licenses that require including their texts with all derivative works include ASL 2.0, EPL, BSD and MIT. Packagers should point out to upstream that by not including a proper full license text, they are making it difficult or impossible for anyone to comply with their desired license terms.