On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Máirín Duffy <duffy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/06/2013 03:10 AM, drago01 wrote: >> Which issue? It is not like icons "link" to each other it is just an >> aggregation. >> If we can ship them in an ISO we can ship them in rpm package as well. >> >> I can't think of any license that forbids an icon to be in the same >> package then an icon with a different license. >> (This would make that license non free as this is nothing then an >> arbitrary restriction). > > As with anything regarding legalities and lawyers, I'm not sure there's > much logical reasoning around something like this for a layperson... and > I'm no lawyer, I'm just saying I think that is where it got stopped up > before. Sure but law does not differentiate between "iso image", "tarball" and "package". If we can ship them in the former we can ship them in the later. If the problem is simply listing the licenses we can have a text file with the licenses in the package, no need to have it in the license tag (we can just add something "Multple see foo.txt"). I know you are just the messenger here ... but we are blocking this for trivial / non existent reasons for a long time already, while everyone else (other distributions) happily ship the obvious solution and provide a way better user experience then we do. -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
