* Mark Wielaard [19/02/2024 18:24] : > > So at some point RPM/Fedora adopted the %license directive. This was nearly a decade ago, in the F21/F22 era. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/411 > Which basically meant that we would always include the full declared > license of the project. This assumes the upstream tarball contains a file with the text of the license it is under. To the best of my knowledge, a packager should not use %license if this is not the case and no one should assume a package contains it. > Do you happen to know why after this the > License field was (also) kept? I believe the only thing discussed at the time was not implementing %license, due to it being seen as redundant to License. Emmanuel -- _______________________________________________ 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
