>>>>> "TJ" == Tim Jackson <lists@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: TJ> If the license file isn't distributed with the package, we should TJ> have a clear policy: either we pull it in from an external source TJ> (maybe if that's "reasonably" possible, i.e. it's distributed on a TJ> public URL as a standalone file), or we don't. Hundreds of Perl modules do not include the license text. Most of those are under the same terms as Perl (GPL or Artistic). It is trivial to generate them via perldoc and include them in the package, but this is essentially never done because of the sheer redundancy having the same text in hundreds of modules. When doing reviews, the only time I will request that license text be added to the package when it isn't in the tarball is if the license is not one of the commonly seen licenses or if the license itself is variable. So if you're adding clauses to BSD or you're using the historical permission and disclaimer (which is a multiple-choice thing) or if your package says "These files are under the RandomCrapWare license" then I'll want to see it. At some point it has to come down to common sense. Unfortunately I suspect that excessive formalization will lead to us having a list of licenses which are acceptable to not include if they aren't in the tarball. - J< -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
