Richard Fontana wrote: > I don't really see the justification. Apart from maybe the > complications of Rust and Go packages that were mentioned (which I > think raise some deeper issues that haven't really been addressed > satisfactorily yet), I see no point in having *both* `License:` and > `SourceLicense:`. If a full license breakdown of what's in the SRPM is > desired then that should be the standard of what goes in `License:`, > instead of the traditional Fedora approach of having `License:` be a > subset (or, as it was formerly described, "the license of the binary > RPM"). I'll note this just so it's not forgotten in this debate: There isn't just one License tag. Subpackages can have their own License tags. Different SourceLicense tags on different subpackages would not make sense. If License would be redefined to contain the license of the source package, then License tags on subpackages would have to be banned at the same time. Björn Persson
Attachment:
pgpoWCPouq3u9.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur
-- _______________________________________________ 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
