I found conflicting information regarding the license of scripts used during installation, but that are not installed. The dev manual states: "The value of this variable should include all licenses pertaining to the "corresponding source" of the files installed by the package. This includes all their source code, but also all scripts used to control compilation and installation." https://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/licenses/index.html But the QA policy states: "The licenses for files that are not installed but that are used at build time are not listed explicitly." "The ebuild format does not provide a separate variable to list licenses needed only at build time. So far it has not been considered important enough to have one, as the relevant files exist only temporarily on the user’s system and do not affect the runtime use of packages." https://projects.gentoo.org/qa/policy-guide/other-metadata.html#pg0704
The devmanual was updated some time ago, because by the FSF's definition the licenses for all files of the "corresponding source" must be listed: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/devmanual.git/commit/?id=4a74d85757e446a1d5e755cc3c3e7eae69762b1c Presumably, the QA policy guide should be updated accordingly.
Created attachment 794033 [details, diff] Proposed update for PG 0704
The bug has been closed via the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/policy-guide.git/commit/?id=92bb5e10171165b681c3ec526d90a1508e6dc9fa commit 92bb5e10171165b681c3ec526d90a1508e6dc9fa Author: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2022-07-24 17:15:42 +0000 Commit: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2022-07-25 16:08:46 +0000 other-metadata: Sync with the updated LICENSE policy in the devmanual See commit 4a74d85 in the proj/devmanual repository: By the FSF's definition (see for example GPL-3): "The 'Corresponding Source' for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities." It makes much sense to apply this as a general definition. Applying it only to GPL licensed packages would mean: - We would need another case distinction, making the rules for LICENSE even more complicated. - As an example, consider a MIT licensed package with a CDDL licensed (i.e., GPL incompatible) build script: If that package was a library, then it couldn't be linked against a GPL licensed package, whereas a LICENSE variable listing only MIT would falsely indicate that it could. Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/860552 Signed-off-by: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> other-metadata.rst | 19 ++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
