Hi Jonathan
For reviews, we have a tool (fedora-review) which runs licensecheck
recursively in the source tree. Fedora-review then prints out the
detected licenses in the license headers of the files and the
reviewer/packager is asked to compare these licenses with the actual
license declared by the project resp. in the package metadata (i.e. the
spec file).
So I suppose that typically people expect that each source file contains
a license header (from my point of view this also makes sense if
individual files are reused outside of the project). But it is not a
review-blocking issue, our guidelines simply ask us to raise the issue
upstream.
Thanks
Sandro
On 05.07.2016 11:40, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Hi Sandro,
Thanks for the bugreport, and thanks a lot for packaging licensecheck
for Fedora - moving it to CPAN was done *exactly* to ease redistribution
also outside of Debian :-D
Comments below the quote...
Quoting Sandro Mani (2016-07-05 09:24:31)
Package: licensecheck
Version: 3.0.1
The following issue was raised during review of the Fedora package [1]:
These source files are without license headers:
App-Licensecheck-v3.0.1/bin/licensecheck
App-Licensecheck-v3.0.1/lib/App/Licensecheck.pm
Please, ask to upstream to confirm the
licensing of code and/or content/s, and ask to add license headers
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification
COPYRIGHT states clearly that bin/licensecheck and lib/App/Licensecheck.pm are
GPL-3.0, but it would not harm to add license headers also?
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352667#c5
The issue you raise here puzzles me, however: What licensing information
more specifically do you (or others in Fedora) believe is missing from
those three files?
Is it perhaps that you/they feel that licensing statements in a _header_
comment are somehow superior to statements embedded in POD (commonly
placed near the bottom for Perl modules)?
NB! Please beware that license scanners - both licensecheck and (it
seems, but I am only guessing) rpmlint - can be only advisory, and if in
doubt you should read the actual code yourself.
Regards,
- Jonas
