On 11/11/2009 01:44 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > Seems fine to me as long as we otherwise stick to our prohibition on > file duplication. Do we need to somehow define "license files"? If > documentation specifies "this is GPL", does that make it a license file? > Does the presence of a COPYING file change the answer? (I know, it's a > relatively pointless question, but I know with certainty that it won't > be too long before it is asked in a package review.) I've had the idea for some time that it would be ideal if rpm supported something like this: %files %doc foo bar %license COPYING That would make it clear what the license file is, from an RPM perspective. From a definition perspective, I define a license file as: "A copy of the legal text which defines the copyright on the work and the permissions or restrictions placed upon that work by the copyright holder(s)." So, COPYING (where COPYING is a copy of the GPLv3 license text) is a license file. A README.txt which simply says "This code is under GPLv3." is not a license file. Worth mentioning in the Licensing guidelines? ~spot -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
