[fab] [Fwd: What is the mkisofs license?]

[Paul W. Frields]

On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 15:15 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 14:03 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > >
> > 
> > I would like a FC7 goal of having at least the spec files patched to
> > use the same 'terms' in every License: tag. GPL, Gnu Public License
> > V2, etc makes a job for someone who has to look at these things for a
> > 'site' harder. I would like to have the terms to be standardized a bit
> > more to something like:
> > 
> > License: GPL (see COPYING for complete versions)
> > License: Various (see LICENSES for versions and files applied)
> > 
> > etc. That way a person can go see that the license(s) is there, what
> > file(s) are it in etc.
> > 
> > Having each packager go through that rigamarole might have them think
> > : "Hmmm this code turns out to be CDDL/GPL/SCO combined code. Maybe I
> > should find something else."
> 
> That's a pretty good idea IMHO.  Care to bring it to the Packaging
> Committee and see if the standardization of the license descriptions can
> be added to the guidelines?

Keep in mind changes would have to be propagated to rpmlint as well.
Perhaps including a note in the package %description would be preferable
to overloading the License tag?


-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
       Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board
    Fedora Docs Project:  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20060814/0dd6aa3c/attachment.sig>