Contribution to Extras (an update)

Jason L Tibbitts III tibbs at
Mon Apr 17 19:36:01 UTC 2006

>>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at> writes:

RC> The point is: This requirement is legal non-sense and probably
RC> void.

Why on earth would this have anything to do with legality?  The
requirement is there for clarity; games often have custom licenses
that aren't easily summarized in the 20 characters that the RPM
License: tag gives us.  People need to be able to see the license for
the game files summarized as documentation instead of plowing through
the source code.

The only context in which the requirement would be void would be that
of Fedora Extras, and then only if the steering committee declared
that the Games SIG can't place that additional restriction.  Which
they haven't.  So just what are you objecting to?

 - J<

More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list