On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 07:36:35PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > * There was plenty of interesting discussion here; it's a delicate > > issue but the current tendency is to let License: refer to the > > license on the source packages. > Erm, can we word that as "let License: refer to the license of the > parts of the sources used to build the binaries. IOW not any > licenses inherited from libraries used" The source package by itself is already derived work, which someone can use to build from all sources. E.g. you cannot restrict to what you actually use, for a hyperbole's sake: someone could take the kernel tar.gz, find a public domain file in there and republish the kernel tar.gz as public domain as he only used that one file of the tarball :) I think the magic attitude here is to note that this Licensing tag is just to aid some preparsing stuff for real humans to look at. Best is to put the most restrictive tag in License: that results from the whole of the sources and clarify within the package if need be. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpzCmwUuuSaA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 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
