On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: >> (Note: pagure can and will enforce the FPCA for dist-git) > > I know Richard Fontana has expressed some interest in reducing the need > for FPCA. Maybe this is an opportunity to move in that direction? I > know Spot has said that "License In = License Out" is adequate for > projects on Github; I think Spot's concern with spec files is that we > don't give them an explicit license (right)? > > As we're moving things, can we do something in Pagure to cover this, so > the FPCA isn't needed here? > The alternative I've seen implemented in openSUSE is to have a license header on the top of every spec file. For example: https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/openSUSE:Factory/createrepo_c/createrepo_c.spec?expand=1 I'm not sure that would be really appreciated by most people, who are fine with the FPCA automatically handling this aspect and providing default licensing. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
