The openSUSE project requires spec files to have a license header. It assigns the same license to its RPM spec files as the license of the package itself. So, if a package is GPLv3-licensed, the spec file is also considered GPLv3. The exception is if a package does not have an open-source license, then the spec file is assigned the MIT License.
It seems to be incredibly inconvenient for everybody involved. Is it implied that due to the GPL linking clause, this is (in their opinion) what you have to do?
It’s a really strange choice because the spec file doesn’t link against anything in the code. It’s not to different from a textual description of the build process.
It’s also problematic when the package license changes. Suppose a package with a sole maintainer (who can just do it single-handedly) changes its license from GPLv3 to MIT. Suppose the spec has multiple contributors who all need to agree to any potential license change. Now the spec is stuck with GPLv3 even though the license of the package itself is now much more permissive.
On the flip side, a spec file must (if only to protect maintainers) have some license. “Use the same as the package” is simple to explain, and avoids all kinds of ongoing support requests / discussions / storms in teacups over ‘license changes’ which aren’t really licence changes.
Very curious how the OpenSUSE policy came to be.
It seems to be incredibly inconvenient for everybody involved. Is it implied that due to the GPL linking clause, this is (in their opinion) what you have to do?
It’s a really strange choice because the spec file doesn’t link against anything in the code. It’s not to different from a textual description of the build process.
It’s also problematic when the package license changes. Suppose a package with a sole maintainer (who can just do it single-handedly) changes its license from GPLv3 to MIT. Suppose the spec has multiple contributors who all need to agree to any potential license change. Now the spec is stuck with GPLv3 even though the license of the package itself is now much more permissive.
On the flip side, a spec file must (if only to protect maintainers) have some license. “Use the same as the package” is simple to explain, and avoids all kinds of ongoing support requests / discussions / storms in teacups over ‘license changes’ which aren’t really licence changes.
I love their choice of license.