-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/17/2015 07:30 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:53:09AM +0000, Mat Booth wrote: >>> 1) add readme file only to %doc 2) add readme file only to >>> %license 3) add readme to both %doc and %license 4) cut file in >>> two parts >> Actually I don't mind options 1, 2 or 3 (all of these options >> fulfil the legal obligations of the license, right?) -- 4 seems >> like unnecessary effort for no real gain. > > Don't forget the "nodocs" use case, which the separate license tag > helps cover. That means 2 or 3 is preferable to 1. My suggestion > would be to go with 3 and then to ask upstream to separate it out. > Ideally, if they're using a standard license, we can in the future > deduplicate identical license files, too, but only if they're just > the license alone in a file. Just to clarify, Option 1 would not in fact be legally acceptable in many cases (because installation with --nodocs could then result in an installation that did not meet license requirements of having the text present on the installed system). I agree with Matthew's recommendation here. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlZystUACgkQeiVVYja6o6PmxgCeO7bainAZbFIdMDgXTW3iwncT E7sAnRM66UyQN8RoqXry7ILZNXSmpTBR =donN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
