License text in binary packages

[José Pedro Oliveira]

Paul Howarth wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 23:37:32 -1000, Warren Togami 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. 
>>
>>
>>
>> +1
> 
> 
> <AOL>
> Me too
> </AOL>
> 
>>> 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?  We are
>>> supposed to add another copy of the license to each SRPM?
>>
>>
>>
>> Do we have examples for this? (other than a missing GPL "COPYING" file)
> 
> 
> It's very common for both the GPL and Artistic license texts not to be
> shipped with perl modules that use the same license as perl (i.e. dual
> GPL/Artistic).
> 

You may also add LaTeX packages from CTAN: most of them are licensed
under the LPPL (LaTeX Project Public License) but usually don't
include the full text of the license .

I think this may extended to all (?) comprehensive mirror systems:

  * CPAN - Comprehensive Perl Archive Network
    http://www.cpan.org/

  * CTAN - Comprehensive TeX Archive Network
    http://www.ctan.org/

  * CRAN - Comprehensive R Archive Network
    http://cran.r-project.org/
  * ...


jpo
-- 
José Pedro Oliveira
* mailto: jpo at di.uminho.pt * http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo *
* gpg fingerprint = F9B6 8D87 859D 1C94 48F0 84C0 9749 9EB5 91BD 851B *
http://conferences.yapceurope.org/2005/ * http://braga.yapceurope.org/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 251 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20050905/9c69857d/attachment.sig>