On 7/26/07, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com> 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
PS. Not trying to be a pain in the ass to the guy who took over
something I half assed did back in FC2 or so.. who just drove across
the country, and hasnt found where they serve grits in Boston (so he
can either have or avoid).
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"