[tz] input needed on creation of a new sub-package for raw zone data

Paul.Koning at dell.com Paul.Koning at dell.com
Tue May 23 20:23:59 UTC 2017

> On May 23, 2017, at 3:22 PM, Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis at SystematicSw.ab.ca> wrote:
> On 2017-05-23 11:20, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> On 05/23/2017 08:57 AM, Brian Inglis wrote:
>>> Almost mandatory nowadays for consideration for packaging, and avoidance
>>> of doubt, it states that all the files are PD, with code exceptions.
>> None of those exceptions apply to the proposed package, so the LICENSING
>> file would be confusing and even misleading for that package.
>> If the proposed Red Hat package requires a LICENSING file for some
>> reason, that file should simply say "This package is in the public
>> domain." However, I don't see why a separate LICENSING file is needed.
>> There's no such file in already-existing Red Hat packages, such as the
>> tzdata package, so why is it needed in the proposed package? Besides,
>> under my proposal each file in the package would contain a comment
>> saying that the file is in the public domain, so any separate LICENSING
>> file would be bureaucratic overkill.
> From pkgs.org Fedora Rawhide tzdata-2017b-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
>    /usr/share/doc/tzdata/README
>    /usr/share/doc/tzdata/Theory
>    /usr/share/doc/tzdata/tz-link.html
>    /usr/share/licenses/tzdata/LICENSE
> Many people and companies are wary of using code, data, or software
> nowadays without knowing explicit rights to any collection.

That makes sense.  The right way to consider licenses is that the absence of a stated license means there is no license (no rights to use at all).  A one line file that says "this whole package is in the public domain" would serve.  Or if that's not completely accurate, it should say "with the exception of x, y, and z, this package is in the public domain".

And using LICENSE as the name for that file makes sense because that's what people expect to look for.


More information about the tz mailing list