--nextPart2151492.irdbgypaU6
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; protected-headers="v1"
From: Volker Krause <vkrause@kde.org>
To: kde-devel@kde.org
Subject: Re: Flatpak Manifest Licensing
Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 12:58:25 +0200
Message-ID: <1860154.tdWV9SEqCh@vkpc5>
Organization: KDE
In-Reply-To: <84ac5df6-6948-c291-476c-dca162d290d6@gmail.com>
References: <84ac5df6-6948-c291-476c-dca162d290d6@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Freitag, 19. Mai 2023 02:26:37 CEST Justin Zobel wrote:
> Hey Everyone,
> 
> As Binary Factory is to be shut down soon we are moving the Flatpak
> manifests to their individual GitLab repositories.
> 
> Most of this is fairly simple, however, some GitLab repositories have
> enabled reuse linting (which is great). The Flatpak manifests I have
> come across so far have not had any licensing information included. This
> email is just to start a discussion about what everyone's thoughts are
> about which license to apply for them.
> 
> The GitLab CI files are licensed as CC0-1.0 and I'm thinking that this
> might be a suitable license as the Flatpak manifest files are simply
> text files.
> # SPDX-FileCopyrightText: None
> # SPDX-License-Identifier: CC0-1.0

We can make license recommendations, but especially for the existing ones I'd 
say this is something their respective authors need to decide/agree to, we 
can't just pick whatever we like if there is no license information.

Regards,
Volker
--nextPart2151492.irdbgypaU6
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EABECAB0WIQQAnu3FVHA48KjZ07R/lszWTRLSRwUCZGdWUQAKCRB/lszWTRLS
R5vCAKCLKBpiq++75647WJKgjhd5ObrcbwCgjgM7PMO/ODYX+cJGDoWohssCbH0=
=uZZy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart2151492.irdbgypaU6--