Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 911848 - app-text/sgml-common installs no licensing information
Summary: app-text/sgml-common installs no licensing information
Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Current packages (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: Normal normal (vote)
Assignee: Michał Górny
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2023-08-07 10:44 UTC by steffen_brauer
Modified: 2023-08-08 09:09 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description steffen_brauer 2023-08-07 10:44:41 UTC
The source package https://dev.gentoo.org/~floppym/dist/${PN}/${P}-gentoo.tar.gz contains a soft-link to /usr/share/automake/COPYING which is very likely to not exists on the installing system. So no licensing information gets installed (and thus nothing is accompanying the installed code, violating §3 GPLv2)

Reproducible: Always
Comment 1 Sam James archtester Gentoo Infrastructure gentoo-dev Security 2023-08-07 16:14:24 UTC
Note that we don't in general install licence files as part of individual packages because we use the LICENSE field instead (and it's part of the repo).
Comment 2 steffen_brauer 2023-08-08 06:10:34 UTC
As per https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/License_groups/BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE that is a more global and severe defect then, as that makes the result of those packages non-redistributable.
Comment 3 Sam James archtester Gentoo Infrastructure gentoo-dev Security 2023-08-08 06:30:03 UTC
(In reply to steffen_brauer from comment #2)
> As per https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/License_groups/BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE
> that is a more global and severe defect then, as that makes the result of
> those packages non-redistributable.

That's not the same as an "explicit inclusion requirement". See the extensive discussion in bug 782841.
Comment 4 Ulrich Müller gentoo-dev 2023-08-08 07:14:59 UTC
AFAICS, the only file licensed under GPL-2+ is missing, and it is neither used nor being installed. Therefore it doesn't belong to the "corresponding source", which means that GPL-2+ should not be listed in the ebuild's LICENSE variable.
https://projects.gentoo.org/qa/policy-guide/other-metadata.html#pg0704

install-sh is under a MIT/X11 license (and is used during build). So the ebuild should be updated to have:

LICENSE="FDL-1.1+ MIT"


(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> That's not the same as an "explicit inclusion requirement". See the
> extensive discussion in bug 782841.

^^ This.
Comment 5 steffen_brauer 2023-08-08 08:50:09 UTC
Thank you for pointing to https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=782841 , that has been an interesting read indeed. Although I may be in disagreement over some finer points raised there, the issue I raised here seems to be already resolved by the aforementioned ticket.

Should I open a new ticket for the missed MIT license?
Comment 6 Larry the Git Cow gentoo-dev 2023-08-08 09:09:37 UTC
The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s):

https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=2d0caa3dfb91847bd21f886b768bd4bc3f9ee435

commit 2d0caa3dfb91847bd21f886b768bd4bc3f9ee435
Author:     Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org>
AuthorDate: 2023-08-08 09:08:31 +0000
Commit:     Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org>
CommitDate: 2023-08-08 09:09:19 +0000

    app-text/sgml-common: update LICENSE
    
    Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/911848
    Signed-off-by: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org>

 app-text/sgml-common/sgml-common-0.6.3-r7.ebuild | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)