Hi,
I am updating perl-Encode. The following license was added into several files. Is it UCD license?
# Copyright (c) 1991-2011 Unicode, Inc. All Rights reserved. # # This file is provided as-is by Unicode, Inc. (The Unicode Consortium). No # claims are made as to fitness for any particular purpose. No warranties of # any kind are expressed or implied. The recipient agrees to determine # applicability of information provided. If this file has been provided on # magnetic media by Unicode, Inc., the sole remedy for any claim will be # exchange of defective media within 90 days of receipt. # # Unicode, Inc. hereby grants the right to freely use the information # supplied in this file in the creation of products supporting the # Unicode Standard, and to make copies of this file in any form for # internal or external distribution as long as this notice remains # attached.
The files with the license are part of source rpm, but they are not included in binary rpm. Should be the license mention in License: tag in this case?
Thank you, Jitka Plesnikova
On 08/21/2013 10:56 AM, Jitka Plesnikova wrote:
Hi,
I am updating perl-Encode. The following license was added into several files. Is it UCD license?
# Copyright (c) 1991-2011 Unicode, Inc. All Rights reserved. # # This file is provided as-is by Unicode, Inc. (The Unicode Consortium). No # claims are made as to fitness for any particular purpose. No warranties of # any kind are expressed or implied. The recipient agrees to determine # applicability of information provided. If this file has been provided on # magnetic media by Unicode, Inc., the sole remedy for any claim will be # exchange of defective media within 90 days of receipt. # # Unicode, Inc. hereby grants the right to freely use the information # supplied in this file in the creation of products supporting the # Unicode Standard, and to make copies of this file in any form for # internal or external distribution as long as this notice remains # attached.
The files with the license are part of source rpm, but they are not included in binary rpm. Should be the license mention in License: tag in this case?
The lack of permission to modify might be a concern here, but if these files are not used in the binary RPM at all, we don't need to worry (and do not need to include it in the License tag). We might want to rm them during %prep to make sure they're not being used in some non-obvious way.
~tom
== Fedora Project
-
Jitka Plesníková -
Tom Callaway