On 11/13/2012 06:07 AM, Jaromir Capik wrote:
We've been told, that Fedora and RHEL RPMs differ
in the licensing so that RHEL RPM specs should have
listed licenses for binary and source packages, whilst
the Fedora RPM specs should have listed licenses for
binary packages only.
Is that right?
In fact we're redistributing the sources in form of SRPMs
and that's why I see this only as a matter
of our choice/policy/approach.
Please, let me know if you could send us any statement
about that, since we're already getting quite confused.
I can't comment on RHEL policies, but I do not believe there is a way to
indicate the License tag for a SRPM in a way that is different from the
binary RPMs (whereas, it is possible to indicate a different License tag
for each binary subpackage).
I do not see the value in listing the licenses for source files which
are not in the binary RPMs. If RPM supported a "SRPMLicense" field, then
we could be more complete there, but right now, it does not (AFAIK).
~tom
==
Fedora Project