On 7/27/07, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > # For a breakdown of the licensing, see PACKAGE-LICENSING > Actual would it be possible that we cut down the syntax to the following: License: see PACKAGE-LICENSING PACKAGE-LICENSING: [Change format so that you can autoparse it better: # Packager fill in the following. Package Reviewer check off. Licenses for binaries: GPLv3+ Licenses for documentation: CC v3 OR GFDLv1.1 Licenses for source code: GPLv3+ # Auto built licenses from rpmbuild-find-licenses.py Known License Files Found: GPLv2+ : /usr/share/pudding-pie-1.1.1/COPYING Mozilla 1+ :/usr/share/pudding-pie-1.1.1/MOZILLA_STUFF Unknown Licenses Found: Apache 9 : Found mentioned in ./pudding-pie-1.1.1/zapper.cc # License Headers Found: ./pudding-pie-1.1.1/foo.cc GPLv2+ ./pudding-pie-1.1.1/main.cc Mozilla 1+ ./pudding-pie-1.1.1/zapper.cc Apache 9 .... # No License Headers Found In: ./pudding-pie-1.1.1/foo.h .... The tool could do a rough draft, and try to pull out any bad stuff that might show up.. or at least help a reviewer think to themselves.. wtf Apache 9 License? These could be fed upstream to help the authors better protect their IP, avoid a license issue where their code ends up somewhere because it didnt have a license header etc. -- 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
