----- "Josh Boyer" <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:18:15 -0700 > Karsten Wade <kwade@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 12:46 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:24:00 -0700 > > > Karsten Wade <kwade@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 17:01 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > > > > > Further questions arise from Fedora maintainers > reusing/modifying > > > > > upstream specs and/or specs from other origins (e.g. other > distros). > > > > > They can be covered by other copyrights/licenses (e.g. the > GPL). > > > > > > > > Since spec files are specific to RPM packaging, could it be > better if > > > > rpm.org set the standard? It could be a bigger first step > toward all > > > > sources of spec files being license compatible. > > > > > > What? That's the equivalent of saying that the GNU Make project > should > > > set the copyright on all makefiles... > > > > No, it's not. > > How is it not? rpm.org is the upstream for rpm. Spec files are used > to build RPMs and are interpreted by the rpm program. Makefiles are > interpreted by make. > > Explain please. Setting copyright and suggesting a license in a comment block are not equivalent. -- Karsten Wade, Developer Community Mgr. Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org gpg key : AD0E0C41 _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
