On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 15:18 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > As of this morning, the Fedora Core and Extras repositories have 2884 > src.rpm packages in them. Going through them, there are 191 different > licenses listed.. many of them variants of the same name (and > sometimes a mis-spelling). Some of the names are useful, and others > are odd: > > libselinux -- License: Public domain (uncopyrighted) Isn't this due to unique restrictions around NSA generated source code? > Something like > > GNU GPL version 2 or higher [see /usr/share/fedora-licenses/GPL_v2] > GNU LGPL version 2 or higher [see /usr/share/fedora-license/LGPL_v2] > GNU GPL version 2 ONLY [see /usr/share/fedora-licenses/GPL_v2] > Mozilla Public License (MPL) version 2.0 [see > /usr/share/fedora-licenses/MPL_2.0] Do we really need to overload this License field with all that? I'd prefer: GPL version 2 or higher LGPL version 2 or higher GPL version 2 MPL version 2.0 Where the syntax is: $LICENSE_SHORT_NAME version $LICENSE_VERSION or higher > it would also help to have something more clear on the packages listed > as Distributable (all ~100 of them).. having to figure out the > restrictions on each one is a pain. Yeah, we should audit the "Distributable" packages. Got a list of those? ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
