https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131284
Kalev Lember <kalevlember(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|needinfo?(kalevlember@gmail |
|.com) |
--- Comment #9 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Michael Catanzaro from comment #8)
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual
license.
I think the license field should be:
BSD and BSD with advertising and ISC and LGPLv2 and LGPLv2+ and MIT and
(MPLv1.1 or GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+)
This is very accurate for the source code, but I don't think we need all that
to describe the license of the resulting _binary_. The license tag in the spec
file is supposed to describe the combined work, the compiled binaries as
shipped in the binary rpm, and this opens up a way to considerably simplify the
license tag.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license...
explains how to deal with multiple licensing scenario and how to figure out
what is the "effective" license of the combined work.
I believe we should be able to just state that:
License: LGPLv2
Where did you find BSD with advertising, by the way?
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing
breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
The guidelines say that you need to do this, but that does not look fun
or reasonable. Maybe just a comment to say "it's complicated" would
be
OK?
If the combined work is under a single license (LGPLv2), I don't think we need
to do this.
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
webkitgtk4-devel.
It seems to be already there for the -devel subpackage, or am I missing
something?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component