On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 00:34 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 05:51 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 18:27 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
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 .
We'll vote on it next week.
-1
As I understand it, you are trying mandate versioned license tags. Such an approach is inapplicable without a "license tags" register being actively maintained by an "licence tag administration office".
In other words, to me your proposal is equivalent to mandating cars carring license tags but allowing car owner to "paint them themselves".
Ralf, there really isn't any other way to solve the problem without having a list of standard license identifiers.
Then think your thought to an end and implement the required administration bureau first.
Right now, you are stopping half-ways, and therefore fail to see the bureaucracy you are trying to push onto fedora contributors. RH is going to force Fedora into a more bureaucratic than Debian has ever been.
The http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing page is the license registry. I'm volunteering to lead the effort to maintain it, since I've effectively been doing that for more than a year now.
ROTFL - You can't be serious to call this an infrastructure.
I'm more than willing to take on additional helpers to maintain this license registry. I'm very willing to alter the license identifiers to make they more simplistic, but without that baseline standard, it won't be possible to predictably track license data from packages.
Whatfor? Somebody from the "dark circles" at RH ordered you to do so and because of the GPLv3 had been introduced. I call this overreaction and hysteria ...
Ralf