Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
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.
If the original tarball contains one, yes.
And
preferably, they should include that license in the Source0 tarball?
IMO, not only "preferable", but they likely must include it, because
their works is a derivative work of other parties.
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
