On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 04:51:04PM +0200, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 4:40 PM Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 04:27:06PM +0200, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > > > The FSF address should be the most straightforward to fix. > > > > > Straightforward, but impossible for a pacakger. Because it's a part of the > > license declaration, only an author can change it, as the license reads: > > > > [...]keep intact all the > > notices that refer to this License [...] > > > > That's the reason why I consider this rpmlint warning quite unhelpful. > > > > Do you mean the author of the software or the license? Author of the software. Author can replace the license declaration as well the license text. > I've seen that debated over and over again and my understanding is that > packagers are not supposed to patch the file, but upstream developers (which > is the case here) should correct that error. Exactly. > Our wiki links to a version of > GPL 2 with the correct address: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address That's a new revision of GPL 2. Author of the license, updates it whenever he moves to a different place. That's fine. Author of the software just copies the updated revision into his software. That's also fine. -- Petr
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
