On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 22:18 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 09:10:07PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 11:57:40AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > >>> On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 16:53 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >>> > >>>> - Clarify where documentation should go. Currently my practice has > >>>> been to put just the license file (if any) in the main package's %doc, > >>>> and the license file plus all other documentation & examples in > >>>> the devel subpackage. This duplicates (only) the license file, but > >>>> that seems acceptable since we shouldn't distribute software without > >>>> its license. > >>> -devel packages should Require the main package, thus, there really > >>> isn't any need for the duplicate license copy. > >> > >> But you could still just install the main package and not devel, and > >> then you are in the situation where Fedora has distributed a binary > >> and basically removed the licensing information. It doesn't feel like > >> the right thing to do to me (but IANAL). > >> > > > > No Spot means it the other way around, keep the license in the main package > > and drop it from the -devel one as that requires the main package anyways. This is the "simplified rule-of-thumb", however there also are situations where this isn't "entirely right". e.g. - application licenses may differ from library licenses (e.g. apps GPL'ed, libraries LGPL'ed). - run-time licenses may differ from devel-licenses (e.g. library uses GPL as umbrella, while individual files in a devel-package (often headers) are covered by less restrictive licenses, such as BSD.) - library licenses may differ from source-code licenses (e.g. library is using LGPL as umbrella, but individual files being used inside of a library are covered by less restrictive licenses). Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
