Matthew Miller wrote: > On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 04:38:16PM +0100, Björn Persson wrote: > > 2: When a package has a list of authors separate from the license file, > > should that list also be tagged as a license file, or is it considered > > regular documentation? It seems to me that *who* gives out a license is > > important information that belongs together with the license. > > With a big "I'm not Fedora Legal" disclaimer, I think the answer here > is really... it depends. > > The intent here is primarily to make it possible to exclude bulky > documentation for containers and other space-constrained installations > while keeping legally-required license statements in place. Authorship > files may or may not be part of that. Then I suppose I should ask Fedora Legal, so I'm CCing the legal list. If it were a legal requirement, then I suppose it would also apply when the author's name is written in a README file together with a lot of other information. I don't remember seeing any explicit requirement to include a separate file with a list of authors. It just feels weird to have a license without a licensor. There are some licenses that contain phrases like "the above copyright notice", but in those cases it's in the same file. Björn Persson
Attachment:
pgpXJyAf2sOmJ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
