[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: COPYING (license) not under docdir



On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 13:51 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 13:37 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 06:32:47AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > > While we're on the subject, what's the importance that the license file 
> > > under %_docdir anyway? As far as I'm concerned, as long as the license 
> > > is in the package somewhere, that's should be sufficient.
> > 
> > Easier mass-review by legal? It's easier to check there than rpm
> > -ql'ing the package and browsing though all file lists.
> A real legal review would have to look into each and every file in any
> case. No matter which kind of "detached license files" a package's
> tarball is accompanied by, or an FE rpm-packager might have added.

Having recently done some of this, I would have to agree with Ralf.

The license in text is nice (and we should try to have it), but the
source code is what is binding.

~spot
-- 
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Technical Team Lead || GPG ID: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]