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 . That was an interesting read. Thanks for your hard work, spot! A few comments, FWIW : - Same as Bill, I prefer the "GPLv2+" style notations. - To keep using "GPL or Artistic" for perl doesn't make much sense to me, since we are trying to differentiate clearly the different GPL versions. Is it "GPLv2+ or Artistic"? "GPLv2 or Artistic"? - If we use only " and " and " or " (with spaces around them), wouldn't the field still be reliably parseable, yet easier to read? And more coherent with the "GPL* or Artistic" from the perl packages? - I find having to detail the licenses in %files quite unpractical, and possibly not the best suited for most cases, as I have the feeling that the most common case of multiple-licensing I've come across is having parts of the source code under a different compatible license, but then having all libs/programs use it. So I think having comments inside the spec file right above the License: tag might be more useful, something like : # The entire source code is GPLv2+ except foolib/ which is BSD License: GPLv2+ and BSD Matthias -- Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/ Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) - Linux kernel 2.6.22.1-27.fc7 Load : 0.56 0.50 0.45 -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
