Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On 03/18/2009 03:45 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Simon Schampijer wrote:
Yes. So the main question is now if Fedora would be willing to ship
general licenses under /usr/share/common-licenses, I think.
I really don't want to do this. Here's why:
A) Many copyright holders make minor modifications to the licensing
terms. These modifications usually do not affect the rights granted by
the license (which is why we do not mark them as distinct and individual
licenses), but it would be incorrect to have these packages pointing to
general license texts when those do not apply.
B) Many licenses require that any distribution include the license text.
Red Hat Legal was very uncomfortable with us using a rpm dependency to
meet that requirement.
What I do think we were looking at doing is having rpm mark %license
texts in a unique way that is different from %doc. This would permit rpm
--excludedocs but retain the license texts.
~spot
So, the point to ship a license per package is fine. I actually did not
want to relax that. I had the technical problem to need to access the
license field to be able to display it in a dialog inside Sugar.
http://shell.sugarlabs.org/~erikos/licence_field.png
And since - the file is placed in different places on each distro I
wanted to see if a common place would be possible, makes sense. On
Fedora this could have been in addition to the per package license
field. Not very economic of course.
Anyhow - while thinking about it, I was not even sure the displaying of
the full license is correct/needed - or matches the guidelines. For
example I have not seen something similar in GNOME.
Maybe someone from Fedora that has more insights on those legal issues
can comment what they want/need to see in such a page for Sugar on Fedora.
Thanks,
Simon
PS: Of course, thanks for all the interesting comments about compressing
the files etc to gain some space.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
