On Wed, 2007-07-25 at 13:26 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > On 25.07.2007 13:05, Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 06:42:53 -0400 > > Simo Sorce <ssorce@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> So a tool that marks samba as GPLv3 may raise a high number of false > >> positives. I guess many other projects will fall under the same > >> conditions. > >> [...] > > I think you're missing the point of the task. The task isn't to mark > > perfectly in every spec file exactly what a package contains. Instead > > it can mark the easy cases, and denote something in the hard cases so > > that when an issue arises, we can easily weed out the easy cases and > > focus on the hard ones manually. > > In addition -- in some cases like the quoted one for samba it *might* be > the easiest and cleanest solution for everyone to just put the libs with > a different license into a different (sub)package. While it may be the case, the decision should absolutely not be dictated by the license. Simo. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
