Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On 03/20/2009 08:52 AM, Lyos Gemini Norezel wrote:
Maybe it's because I'm not a lawyer, that I fail to see the problem with
that. As long as there exists some reference to the license and a location
where it can be read, doesn't that meet the requirements of those licenses?
The short answer is not really. The more assumptions we make, the
farther we get from reality, and for the majority of FOSS licenses, we
(Fedora/Red Hat) bear the burden of informing the user of the licensing
terms of the software that we are distributing.
Here is a common scenario:
The upstream for a package changes licensing from GPL to LGPL. If we are
using a generic-licenses package, we are far less likely to notice this
change, whereas, we would immediately notice that COPYING was replaced
with COPYING.LIBS.
That would be the package maintainers responsibility, no? If a change is
that dramatic,
wouldn't the maintainer notice it right away? (I see alot of emails
about packages changing
licensing)
Wasn't there a discussion, somewhat recently, about libraries that are
shipped with the program instead
of being stored in /lib or /usr/lib?
This is notably different. The licensing is part of our legal obligation
to our users and downstream consumers.
I understand that, but how is a change of license file location going to
change,
or cause problems with, that obligation?
The licenses would still be available for the user to read, if they
desire, and this change
won't really inconvenience anyone.
In addition, this comes out to about 17 MB. It is not a huge amount of
disk space, and certainly not worth the rather additional hassle it
would cause.
In reality, a change like this really should be pushed to FHS.
Standardizing the %License_File location just makes good common sense.
As it is now, each package maintainer is responsible for keeping the
license text as provided by upstream in the package, and the License tag
correct. If we were to generalize this into a central package, we'd have
to do constant auditing to be sure that the license text in the
generalized "LICENSE.rpm" exactly matched that of the package. And by
we, I mean me. Even if Red Hat Legal signed off on such an arrangement,
I'm not really thrilled by this prospect.
Now, if there were a clever way to handle this behind the scenes so that
these license files were not duplicated if they were identical, but
instead, symlinked to the license files in a generic license rpm, I
might be more interested. (If they weren't bit for bit identical, it
wouldn't be symlinked).
Isn't it possible to figure that out with a bit of bash programming?
Eg., use the 'comm' command.
"comm Compare two sorted files line by line"
and, if different, a diff could be generated to show you exactly what's
different.
Doesn't seem like much of a hassle to me.
How difficult would it be to add functionality in yum:
a.) to store the license value of each program, and
b.) to integrate a license reader for easy access/reading?
~spot
Lyos Gemini Norezel
begin:vcard
fn:Lyos Norezel
n:Norezel;Lyos
org:GBES, LLC
adr:;;;;Ohio;;United States
email;internet:Lyos.GeminiNorezel@xxxxxxxxx
title:Computer Repair Technician
note;quoted-printable:"Those who hunt monsters beware, lest they become monsters themselves.Ify=
ou stare long into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you." --Nietzsch=
e=0D=0A=
=0D=0A=
Mundus Vult Decipi et Decipiatur -- Latin Proverb
version:2.1
end:vcard
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
