On 7/26/07, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com 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.
PS. Not trying to be a pain in the ass to the guy who took over something I half assed did back in FC2 or so.. who just drove across the country, and hasnt found where they serve grits in Boston (so he can either have or avoid).