License text in binary packages

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 23:37 -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> Does nobody else see this as a horribly hypocritical? If Red Hat is 
> serious about enforcing this rule, then first mandate it on Core to lead 
> by example.
Exactly, to me all this sounds like FESCO and RH are implementing
"double standards".

Also, to me, it sounds untrustworthy to hear common practice (I.e. not
to _add_ explicit license files) having been practiced for more than a
decade, out of a sudden should be treated illegal.

Guess what I would do now, if I were SCO ;)

>   Then everyone is forced to discuss the technical annoyances 
> like below:
> 
> How are we supposed to deal with cases where the source did not ship a 
> full copy of the license in order to add to %doc easily?
IMO, no.

> We are supposed to add another copy of the license to each SRPM?
I.e. IMHO, we must ship license files, if the sources do. If the sources
don't ship license files, we don't have to. 

Apparently, RH-legal's opinion seems to be different.

> Also... what is Debian's policy about all this?
Cf.
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-pkgcopyright

Also see: 
http://ftp.novell.com/pub/forge/library/SUSE%20Package%20Conventions/spc.html

[The don't even mention it; Also see their perl template]

Ralf