On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 20:07 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen 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. I'm not opposed to that at all. Again, just to reiterate: If the package is dual licensed for all of its bits (e.g. perl-foo, License: GPL or Artistic), you wouldn't need to do this. You'd only need to do this if you had a package with a lot of files with differing licenses. ~spot -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
