On 7/27/07, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> # For a breakdown of the licensing, see PACKAGE-LICENSING
Actual would it be possible that we cut down the syntax to the following:
License: see PACKAGE-LICENSING
PACKAGE-LICENSING: [Change format so that you can autoparse it better:
# Packager fill in the following. Package Reviewer check off.
Licenses for binaries:
Licenses for documentation:
CC v3 OR GFDLv1.1
Licenses for source code:
# Auto built licenses from rpmbuild-find-licenses.py
Known License Files Found:
GPLv2+ : /usr/share/pudding-pie-1.1.1/COPYING
Mozilla 1+ :/usr/share/pudding-pie-1.1.1/MOZILLA_STUFF
Unknown Licenses Found:
Apache 9 : Found mentioned in ./pudding-pie-1.1.1/zapper.cc
# License Headers Found:
./pudding-pie-1.1.1/main.cc Mozilla 1+
./pudding-pie-1.1.1/zapper.cc Apache 9
# No License Headers Found In:
The tool could do a rough draft, and try to pull out any bad stuff
that might show up.. or at least help a reviewer think to themselves..
wtf Apache 9 License?
These could be fed upstream to help the authors better protect their
IP, avoid a license issue where their code ends up somewhere because
it didnt have a license header etc.
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"