Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 04/20/2009 06:28 AM, Mattias Ellert wrote: >> 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. > > *puts on his Fedora Legal hat* > > Does the tarball that you're using as Source0 (or whatever Source lines > are in the spec) contain a separate (and relevant) license text file? If > so, you MUST have it as %doc. If not, you (the packager) can choose to > add it to the package as %doc if you want, but you are NOT required to > do so. > But the packager is generating the tarball listed in Source0....so wouldn't this then be that the packager must include the license from the original upstream tarball used to generate the Source0 tarball. And preferably, they should include that license in the Source0 tarball? -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
