On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 05:51 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 18:27 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > 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 . > > > > We'll vote on it next week. > > -1 > > As I understand it, you are trying mandate versioned license tags. > Such an approach is inapplicable without a "license tags" register being > actively maintained by an "licence tag administration office". > > In other words, to me your proposal is equivalent to mandating cars > carring license tags but allowing car owner to "paint them themselves". Ralf, there really isn't any other way to solve the problem without having a list of standard license identifiers. The http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing page is the license registry. I'm volunteering to lead the effort to maintain it, since I've effectively been doing that for more than a year now. I'm more than willing to take on additional helpers to maintain this license registry. I'm very willing to alter the license identifiers to make they more simplistic, but without that baseline standard, it won't be possible to predictably track license data from packages. ~spot -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
