Mattias Ellert wrote:
mån 2009-04-20 klockan 11:22 +0200 skrev Ralf Corsepius:
This paragraph aims at the problem of tarballs containing
"inlined licenses" vs. packages containing "detached licenses".
With
* "inlined licenses": source files contain a "license section" within
their code.
* "detached licenses": A tarball contains one or more files, describing
the source's contents.
Somewhat oversimplified, this guideline essentially means: "If the
tarball has a license file, then you must include it - if it doesn't,
you must not create one"
Ralf
The question at hand is not whether the tarball contains inlined or
detached licenses. The question is which tarball the guideline refers
to. If it is the large upstream installer it does include a detached
license file. If it is the extracted tarball it does not.
The upstream distribution is the big installer containing the license
file. The creation of the extracted tarballs is part of the packaging
process.
Suppose the packager of a "standard" package with a detached license
file in the upstream tarball made an extracted tarball containing
everything but the upstream license file and then used that as the basis
for a package. Would that make sense? No. Neither does the omission of
the upstream license in the case of the humongous installer. The
extracted tarball should include the upstream license and the
subdirectory of interest from the installer, and then the resulting
package should include the license file.
Paul.
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
