On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 07:55:43PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 03:46:02PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 11:10:34AM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > However, some packagers absolutely insist on duplicating license files > > > (say, once in the main package, and again in the -devel package) and > > > this issue keeps coming up. > > > > And it'll keep coming up in future too. > > > > We are distributing binary packages which you can download > > independently from > > http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/development/i386/os/Packages/ > > using just a web browser or 'wget'. Web browsers and wget don't > > understand RPM dependencies, and RPM files can be unpacked by a > > variety of software, not just the rpm program. > > > > Some of those binary packages have the license stripped from > > them. The GPLv2 clearly says you should not do this: > > > > 1. [...] and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this > > License along with the Program. > > > So if legal says that it's okay to rely on rpm dependencies to do this for > us, you'd still insist on doing your own thing? If it was brought to their attention that there is other software that can unpack individual RPMs, and they gave a detailed response (not just "okay"), then I'd be interested in reading that response. Nuanced legal opinions are always interesting to read. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com Fedora now supports 80 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#) http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
