On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 20:07 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 7/26/07, Tom spot Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 20:31 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa@redhat.com) said:
OK, I know this is going to be painful, but we need to solve this (FESCo is waiting for us to do it), and I think this is the cleanest way:
Please review: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/LicenseTag and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing .
For versioning, I prefer the much shorter 'GPLv2' (GPL version 2 only) and 'GPLv2+' (GPL version 2 or later).
I think the tagging per file in comments is definitely overkill.
Most packages won't need it, and for those that do, it will make the task for whomever is auditing the package (re: me) much simpler.
Hmmm would it be simpler to just have an included PACKAGE-LICENSES file that you would then audit? That would keep the SPEC file from getting overly ugly in some cases, and make your job a lot simpler by giving out a tool that they could check to see if something matches/doesnt match the PACKAGE-LICENSES. We could then share that with our friends at Debian etc unless they have such a tool that we could use.
I'm not opposed to that at all.
Again, just to reiterate:
If the package is dual licensed for all of its bits (e.g. perl-foo, License: GPL or Artistic), you wouldn't need to do this.
You'd only need to do this if you had a package with a lot of files with differing licenses.
~spot