This has been brought up in discussions before: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2006-March/msg00004.html Let's please not get into what the License Tag should hold. I really do not want to have packages that look like this: License: (GPL v2.0 or GPL v2.5) and ((MPL <= 1 or MPL =3) and (...)) and so on and so on... I think it should be clear to people that the Header fields are not meant to be used for this type of thing. A License tag should be something like: License: GPL or Artistic And actual license files should be placed in %doc. If we are to make any kind of standard on this, this is what it should be. Complicating the header tags is only going to complicate a lot of other things and confuse new packagers. The bottom line is that Header tags SHOULD not be used to determine the license. We want to encourage people to read the ACTUAL license itself, not our header tags. All licenses header tags should be as generalized as possible with just "GPL" for this very purpose. We do not want new packagers creating new header tags with all kinds of add ons.. License: GPL (except for clause 4 paragraph 2) and Artistic (with this added on....) etc... Once we go down the road of getting specific on the License tags then we will be adding all kinds of crap to the tag. Please let's not go there. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
