On 7/26/07, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
PS. Not trying to be a pain in the ass to the guy who took over something I half assed did back in FC2 or so.. who just drove across the country, and hasnt found where they serve grits in Boston (so he can either have or avoid). -- 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
