On 13 Nov 2006 09:00:50 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, the license isn't actually the GPL. The packaging committee (and more specifically, me, when I can find some time) is working up a draft guideline on this sort of thing. Essentially, the License: tag is just a hint as to what the actual license is and you shouldn't try to include all of the details of the license there, but you shouldn't lie about it either. If it's called the "Sleepycat license" and isn't just a renamed or slightly amended copy of some other recognized license, then put "Sleepycat" in the license tag and be done with it. The license text needs to be included as %doc in the package anyway and that's where people with serious questions should always refer.
So is the license tag actually useful for anything, I wonder? Seems to me it doesn't serve any purpose other than to give rise to ambiguity, such as the one in this thread. I wonder if it would be more useful to have a %license macro for the files section which flags a given file as the license file. Then, rpmlint and friends could easily flag up packages with a missing COPYING (or equivalent) license file. Jonathan -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
