flathub / com.brave.Browser

https://flathub.org/apps/details/com.brave.Browser
Mozilla Public License 2.0
41 stars 17 forks source link

License the packaging under the same license as the browser #571

Closed fmarier closed 4 months ago

fmarier commented 4 months ago

This repo does not currently have an explicit license outside of the project license mentioned inside of the metainfo (MPL2). This PR preserves the license but explicitly adds the license text to the repo.

Asking all existing team members (other than Brave employees) to review and ideally for all contributors to ack: @alosarjos @EyeCantCU @StellarOrbit @cthu1hoo @mpi3d @LucasWagler @tinywrkb @chrisx8 @pizzadude @admiralakber @frantisekz @evan-a-a @exil0867 @Malom-ctrl @farribeiro

flathubbot commented 4 months ago

Started test build 115188

flathubbot commented 4 months ago

Build 115188 successful To test this build, install it from the testing repository:

flatpak install --user https://dl.flathub.org/build-repo/98003/com.brave.Browser.flatpakref
LucasWagler commented 4 months ago

This repo's .metainfo.xml file contains a tag <metadata_license>CC0-1.0</metadata_license>. What files/information does that tag cover (Edit: it covers the metadata file alone), and how might a new MPLv2 LICENSE file affect it? Should we add clarification in a README to clarify the separate licensing of the .metainfo.xml file?

At a cursory glance, other popular Flatpak package repos don't seem to include a LICENSE file. When it comes to licensing, they only seem to reference the metadata license and the project license in the *.metainfo.xml files, along with the occasional license-as-a-comment in a script. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with adding a license to this repo (it's probably a good idea), though it seems odd that others don't contain one. 🤔

fmarier commented 4 months ago

This repo's .metainfo.xml file contains a tag <metadata_license>CC0-1.0</metadata_license>. ~What files/information does that tag cover~ (Edit: it covers the metadata file alone), and how might a new MPLv2 LICENSE file affect it? Should we add clarification in a README to clarify the separate licensing of the .metainfo.xml file?

Good point. I think I'll add a copy of the CC0 license too for completeness, but I'll do it in a follow-up commit in order to avoid clearing the reviews on this already-approved PR.

flathubbot commented 4 months ago

Started test build 117607

flathubbot commented 4 months ago

Build 117607 successful To test this build, install it from the testing repository:

flatpak install --user https://dl.flathub.org/build-repo/100432/com.brave.Browser.flatpakref