On 7/26/07, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 20:31 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > > OK, I know this is going to be painful, but we need to solve this (FESCo > > is waiting for us to do it), and I think this is the cleanest way: > > > > Please review: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/LicenseTag > > and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing . > > For versioning, I prefer the much shorter 'GPLv2' (GPL version 2 only) > and 'GPLv2+' (GPL version 2 or later). > > I think the tagging per file in comments is definitely overkill. Most packages won't need it, and for those that do, it will make the task for whomever is auditing the package (re: me) much simpler.
Hmmm would it be simpler to just have an included PACKAGE-LICENSES file that you would then audit? That would keep the SPEC file from getting overly ugly in some cases, and make your job a lot simpler by giving out a tool that they could check to see if something matches/doesnt match the PACKAGE-LICENSES. We could then share that with our friends at Debian etc unless they have such a tool that we could use. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
