Follow-up Comment #12, task #16658 (group administration): [comment #11 comment #11:] > [comment #10 comment #10:] >> For consistency and clarity, I have now decided to use AGPL for the >> Cargo.lock and rust_fmt_version.txt files, regardless of whether or not they >> can be restricted by copyright. To work around the fact that these files are >> automatically overwritten, I put the notices in the Cargo.lock.license and >> rust_fmt_version.txt.license files. They are the same notices that other >> files have, except I made the phrase "This file" more specific. > > Copyrightable text files should include copyright and license notices > themselves.
Custom additions to the top of these files are not preserved.
To be clear, the generation of these files is not a one-time initialization
thing.
> In other words, the exception of libgit2 allows linking with software under
> GPLv3; however, when a GPLv3-covered program is linked to other software,
> that other software should be distributable under the terms of GPLv3, and
> libgit2 doesn't allow that,
> www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs.
Does that just mean that any GPLv3 code that links to libgit2 needs to include
an exception to allow that linking?
If that is the correct understanding, then it's nothing to worry about, since
my library does not link to Cargo or anything that's only used by Cargo. The
only connection between libgit2 and my library is that Cargo would use libgit2
to download my library, if a dependency on my library is added in a special
way.
>> - All libraries listed under "N/A" in the output of cargo-license are
>> non-external libraries in the Rust repository. Their licenses are only
>> specified in REUSE.toml, not in the per-library Cargo.toml files.
>
> Is there a reason why the licenses of those libraries may be ignored?
No, their licenses may not be ignored. They are specified in REUSE.toml. Those
libraries are not external dependencies, but rather inside of the Rust
repository. "N/A" is how the cargo-license tool indicates that the "license"
field is not listed in a library's Cargo.toml file.
>> - The Rust repository includes fonts licensed under OFL-1.1. I don't know if
>> that's a problem.
>
> At least you should understand how it interacts with other licenses.
The only thing that gave me uncertainty is that gnu.org lists this license
under "Free licenses, incompatible with the GNU GPL and FDL". I'm still
confused about that.
I at least should know whether or not an HTML file may both use the OFL fonts
and include portions of my GPLed files, because the fonts are for Rust's
documentation generator.
> To be on the same page: all cargo-license lists are libraries, aren't they?
Mostly. It also includes packages that are inside of the current repository,
which aren't always libraries.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?16658>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.nongnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
