Does Fedora/Red Hat Legal have any opinion on whether debuginfo packages need to include license files? Background: There is a packaging guideline, drafted long ago according to requirements given by the legal team, regarding the placement of license files as they relate to subpackages: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing However, RPM itself generates debuginfo packages automatically in a way that's not really controllable by the packager. These packages do not have dependencies on the base packages and will not generally include license files. Since, like drpms and such, they are a non-packager-controlled product of the build system, the packaging committee hasn't ever considered them subject to most guidelines besides a general "turn them off if they aren't useful" rule. Personally I'd like to keep doing that, but an FPC ticket was opened (https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/639), so.... I will relay any feedback back to the packaging committee. - J< _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
