Successful COPR builds of all packages for all available architectures:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/decathorpe/wasmtime/monitor/

Uh. `/WASI/` is a git submodule pointing to the WebAssembly System Interface project[1] (I guess?) which doesn't declare a license[2].
Can you clarify the license for these files and add a comment in the spec file? Note that the submodule is updated in newer wasi-common versions.

[1]: https://github.com/WebAssembly/WASI/tree/5ab83a68d4eb4f218a898ed03b963b7393caaedc
[2]: https://github.com/WebAssembly/WASI/issues/182

Ugh, good catch. I somehow didn't realize that this is a git submodule.

I've commented on that WASI issue, and opened an issue with wasmtime as well:

https://github.com/WebAssembly/WASI/issues/182#issuecomment-1063971585
https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/issues/3912

It looks like upstream opinion is that the included .witx files are not copyrightable at all (as they describe an API).

They are looking to make this explicit by adding a notice that they're released into the Public Domain or licensed as CC0:
https://github.com/WebAssembly/WASI/issues/182#issuecomment-1067814236

Would including a link to these GitHub issues be enough to get this package going for now?

(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #4)
> It looks like upstream opinion is that the included .witx files are not
> copyrightable at all (as they describe an API).

IANAL, but I'm not sure if Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc upstream refers to is directly applicable here. It was about fair use of the APIs, but here we have files with API description clearly authored by someone. In my mind the difference is like between POSIX APIs and corresponding glibc header files.
If it works though, it works in the US which should be sufficient for Fedora.

> They are looking to make this explicit by adding a notice that they're
> released into the Public Domain or licensed as CC0:
> https://github.com/WebAssembly/WASI/issues/182#issuecomment-1067814236
> 
> Would including a link to these GitHub issues be enough to get this package
> going for now?

I have no technical issues with the package.
As discussed on IRC, blocking FE-Legal to clarify the .witx licensing before approving.

Updated to 0.35.3, matching versions of dependencies and dependent packages in Fedora and COPR:

Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-wasi-common.spec
SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-wasi-common-0.35.3-1.fc36.src.rpm

(Upstream has still not clarified the .witx file license.)

Possibly significant: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/RRYM3CLYJYW64VSQIXY6IF3TCDZGS6LM/ (CC0 no longer allowed in Fedora for 'code')

(CC0 no longer allowed in Fedora for 'code')

Wow, that's not a thing that I expected to read.

As for the witx files from the WASI repository (the problem in that's blocking this package review):
I'm not even sure if non-executable interface descriptions would qualify as "code" or "content"?

And if you have opinions or suggestions here, could you please leave them as comments on the GitHub issues?
I don't seem to have any leverage for making things happen here.

I have abandoned my effort to package wasmtime.