On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 15:15 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 14:03 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > > > > > I would like a FC7 goal of having at least the spec files patched to > > use the same 'terms' in every License: tag. GPL, Gnu Public License > > V2, etc makes a job for someone who has to look at these things for a > > 'site' harder. I would like to have the terms to be standardized a bit > > more to something like: > > > > License: GPL (see COPYING for complete versions) > > License: Various (see LICENSES for versions and files applied) > > > > etc. That way a person can go see that the license(s) is there, what > > file(s) are it in etc. > > > > Having each packager go through that rigamarole might have them think > > : "Hmmm this code turns out to be CDDL/GPL/SCO combined code. Maybe I > > should find something else." > > That's a pretty good idea IMHO. Care to bring it to the Packaging > Committee and see if the standardization of the license descriptions can > be added to the guidelines? Keep in mind changes would have to be propagated to rpmlint as well. Perhaps including a note in the package %description would be preferable to overloading the License tag? -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
