On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 16:30 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, I'd be tickled pink if we did this,
but it would
> a LOT of overhead, unless it was automatically generated at build
> and slid into the package.
I would like to try and help with this part. Having a PACKAGE-LICENSE,
fedora-approved-licenses.rpm, and a find-licences.py would all have to
be done together in some stage. The idea is to try and make the life
of the maintainer, upstream, and the project easier in the case where
unknown licenses creep in, an approved package gets an update that has
a bad license in it (Someone changed foo-bar from GPLv2 to
MicrosoftOwnsUv1 on this release..). The idea would be to make it as
automated as possible, or at least create a report that the
maintainer/the reviewer/the board/and the customer could read.
I'm not going to write it into the draft now, but we can amend it as
needed when you've got this ready.
It seems to me there's a fair bit of code that would need to be written
to "find the licenses" before this could occur, but if you're willing to
try, more power to you.