On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 14:51 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 7/27/07, Jeremy Katz <katzj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 11:26 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > 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 > > > > A downside of keeping all the information in a separate file is that it > > doesn't end up in the metadata and so you have to explode out packages > > to get at it. > > > > Well for most single license systems, i could see > > License: GPLv2 see PACKAGE-LICENSING for more information > License: Complicated see PACKAGE-LICENSING for more information > License: Frickin' Complicated see PACKAGE-LICENSING for more information > License: Spot Died For This Package see PACKAGE-LICENSING for more information This is really overloading the License field, and sadly, a "PACKAGE-LICENSING" file wouldn't really be any more legally binding. Don't get me wrong, I'd be tickled pink if we did this, but it would add a LOT of overhead, unless it was automatically generated at build time and slid into the package. ~spot -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
