On 6/29/06, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 09:23 +0100, Tim Jackson wrote: > Christopher Stone wrote: > > > This has been brought up in discussions before: > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2006-March/msg00004.html > > The bottom line is that Header tags SHOULD not be used to determine the > > license. > > Is it not redundant then? IMO, the License:-tag should be considered to be a short informative abbreviated description for the actual licensing, and not to be considered a legally binding description.
After trying various variations of strings.. I would prefer that this is the definition of the License tags. I would prefer that we have a standardized list of them in order to make searching/sorting easier. The main problem right now I am having is with Core packages... where there are many variations on GPL, and combo licenses or just the very useful Distributable tag which does not tell me is it Free, Libre, Open, or Closed. -- Stephen J Smoogen. CSIRT/Linux System Administrator -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
