On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 07:02 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote: > Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote: > > I think you guys are going about it the wrong way. You're so focused on > > the *contents* of the packages that you're missing the packages > > *themselves*. Could the signing of the packages be considered a "work", > > and therefore distribution of said signed packages be a violation of > > copyright law? > > Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the > SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source > code unless it is specifically licensed differently. I'm not talking about the spec file metadata, I'm talking about the signature that's applied to the package itself. -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet@xxxxxxxxx> PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
