Re: Adopt Debian-style 'common licenses' convention?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Dne 5.5.2017 v 20:49 Richard Fontana napsal(a):
> On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 02:28:34PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote:
>> I liked Miro's suggestion of hardlinking the licenses, but it's
>> important to sure they are actually identical with checksums (i.e.,
>> don't just use the License field because what if the upstream project
>> subtly adjusted the license file?)
> Right, it would be necessary for someone maintaining a package to
> verify that what looks like a common license actually matches the
> reference copy. (I don't know if Debian does this.) In some cases,
> non-identical files could be determined nonetheless to match according
> to some criteria. As an example, the GitHub 'choose-a-license' feature
> seems to be resulting in a class of noncanonical common license texts
> that differ from the real authentic copy only in nonsubstantive ways
> (e.g. whitespace).

And copyright holder typically on the top of MIT ...

I would love to see some package with the canonical licenses as a start.
That would be so much better source of official Fedora licenses then the
current wiki, assuming they are machine readable ...


Vít
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux