On 6/29/06, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> "CS" == Christopher Stone <chris.stone@xxxxxxxxx> writes: CS> Personally I want as little liability on me as a packager as CS> possible. Note that this would essentially require no interpretation of the license whatever.
If indeed there is some liability issues on the packager on the License field, I think then it should be discussed about placing a weblink in the License field and have some type of standard such as: License: Fedora Approved (GPL) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/.. The wiki page would then explain the different class of licenses acceptable by Fedora and note that the (GPL) indicates a class of licenses associated with GPL, etc. Or even omitting the (GPL) part. This would be ideal, but probably on a more realistic standpoint the status quo will remain, that is the License field is up to the packager and should just remain a should item on reviews. However, I think there should be a consensus on what should be considered "best practice" if the packager is in doubt. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
