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.
This would only be sensible if we had a way to tag the license for the
source and the main binary package differently. Unless that exists, we
can only put "License: <all licenses combined>" into such a package
because you'd need to cover the source RPM.
Nils
--
Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
