Re: Effective license analysis: required or not?

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

 



V Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 06:39:55PM +0200, Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
> 
> Dne 28. 08. 23 v 17:26 Petr Pisar napsal(a):
> > 
> > I write usually, because there can be spec files which do not produce a binary
> > package for the first subpackage. Then the only package where the Name tag
> > (and its License tag, if overriden in other subpackages) manifests is the
> > source package. We use these spec files without main binary subpackge rarely
> > in EPEL.
> 
> 
> Isn't it the default case for python packages?

It is. I completely forgot Python.

> (although I am not sure why you mention EPEL instead of Fedora)

Because no better example (suppling -devel subpackages in EPEL for main
main packages delivered by RHEL) came to my mind.

-- Petr

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

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

  Powered by Linux