[Fedora-packaging] Including License doc in packages

[Tim Jackson]

There seems to be some confusion about including the license file in a 
package.  I have been told two more-or-less contradictory things in two 
very similar packages. Unfortunately I can't find the wiki citation 
about this right now, but...


php-pear-DB (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176733):

"You do not have to bring in the license from an external source."


php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging 
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185423):

"SHOULD FIX: Include actual license in %doc"


OK, so they're not actually contradictory. But we really ought to have 
some consistency here. If the license file isn't distributed with the 
package, we should have a clear policy: either we pull it in from an 
external source (maybe if that's "reasonably" possible, i.e. it's 
distributed on a public URL as a standalone file), or we don't. 
Otherwise we just lengthen package reviews and cause the precious time 
of packagers to be wasted with repeated pointless discussions and 
re-spins of packages.

I really don't care what the policy is - I don't mind whether or not I 
have to pull external license files into my packages, I just think there 
should be an unambiguous policy so that I don't have to have this debate 
every time I do a package. Plus we have at least some consistency for users.


Tim