[Bug 166254] Review Request: perl-Imager

[Paul Howarth]

On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 02:32 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On 8/19/05, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> wrote:
> > IMHO (IANAL), this is a non-issue and the guidelines should be changed
> > accordingly.
> 
> Are you the only person to hold this opinion or is there recent list
> discussion you can point me to that suggests there is a consensous
> view that this particular review guideline requirement needs adjusting
> or a less strict interpretation when a license is implied by reference
> to another package's license?  I'm not a lawyer either so until the
> guideline language is weakened to suggest there is some leeway I'm
> going to lean on the provided guideline language which says its
> required.  But please if you feel strongly about this, perhaps you can
> discuss this potential change in the current guidelines in the
> fedora-packaging list and get this requirement stricken.

Suggestion:
Why don't we do what Debian do and ship an "common licenses" package?
That way, any package using one of those licenses can include the common
licenses package as a dependency. That ensures that the license is
installed (and can be referred to) whenever the package gets installed,
and saves a lot of duplication, e.g. for the GPL, which is duplicated by
many, many packages on most systems.

Paul.
-- 
Paul Howarth <paul at city-fan.org>