Re: License text in binary packages

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

 



Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 23:37:32 -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
Does nobody else see this as a horribly hypocritical? If Red Hat is serious about enforcing this rule, then first mandate it on Core to lead by example.


+1

<AOL>
Me too
</AOL>

Then everyone is forced to discuss the technical annoyances like below:

How are we supposed to deal with cases where the source did not ship a full copy of the license in order to add to %doc easily? We are supposed to add another copy of the license to each SRPM?


Do we have examples for this? (other than a missing GPL "COPYING" file)

It's very common for both the GPL and Artistic license texts not to be shipped with perl modules that use the same license as perl (i.e. dual GPL/Artistic).

Paul.


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Development]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux