On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 20:07 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 7/26/07, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 20:31 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa(a)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
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