On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 10:41 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 09:36 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > 1. Spec files don't have binary/source forms. It's more like a shell > script. I disagree. They are source-code to the "rpmbuild-compilers". It internally expands them to scripts, but this an implementation detail (many compilers do similar things) > 2. The license of the spec file does NOT have any bearing on the bits > inside the RPM. ACK. > 3. It is NEVER safe to assume that because something is unlicensed that > it is Public Domain. ACK > IMHO, no existing license is a good fit for spec files. IMO, SuSE's approach is superior: http://en.opensuse.org/SUSE_Package_Conventions/RPM_Style#1.1._Initial_Comments Unlike your proposal, it additionally avoids conflicts with "upstream specs" and licensing conflicts between *.tar.*, *.diffs and *.spec inside of the src.rpm. Ralf _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
