On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 13:51 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 13:37 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 06:32:47AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > > > While we're on the subject, what's the importance that the license file > > > under %_docdir anyway? As far as I'm concerned, as long as the license > > > is in the package somewhere, that's should be sufficient. > > > > Easier mass-review by legal? It's easier to check there than rpm > > -ql'ing the package and browsing though all file lists. > A real legal review would have to look into each and every file in any > case. No matter which kind of "detached license files" a package's > tarball is accompanied by, or an FE rpm-packager might have added. Having recently done some of this, I would have to agree with Ralf. The license in text is nice (and we should try to have it), but the source code is what is binding. ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Technical Team Lead || 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
