On 11/13/2012 06:07 AM, Jaromir Capik wrote: > We've been told, that Fedora and RHEL RPMs differ > in the licensing so that RHEL RPM specs should have > listed licenses for binary and source packages, whilst > the Fedora RPM specs should have listed licenses for > binary packages only. > > Is that right? > > In fact we're redistributing the sources in form of SRPMs > and that's why I see this only as a matter > of our choice/policy/approach. > > Please, let me know if you could send us any statement > about that, since we're already getting quite confused. I can't comment on RHEL policies, but I do not believe there is a way to indicate the License tag for a SRPM in a way that is different from the binary RPMs (whereas, it is possible to indicate a different License tag for each binary subpackage). I do not see the value in listing the licenses for source files which are not in the binary RPMs. If RPM supported a "SRPMLicense" field, then we could be more complete there, but right now, it does not (AFAIK). ~tom == Fedora Project _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
