[Fedora-packaging] Including License doc in packages

Jason L Tibbitts III tibbs at math.uh.edu
Wed Jun 28 22:32:18 UTC 2006

>>>>> "TJ" == Tim Jackson <lists at timj.co.uk> writes:

TJ> If the license file isn't distributed with the package, we should
TJ> have a clear policy: either we pull it in from an external source
TJ> (maybe if that's "reasonably" possible, i.e. it's distributed on a
TJ> public URL as a standalone file), or we don't.

Hundreds of Perl modules do not include the license text.  Most of
those are under the same terms as Perl (GPL or Artistic).  It is
trivial to generate them via perldoc and include them in the package,
but this is essentially never done because of the sheer redundancy
having the same text in hundreds of modules.

When doing reviews, the only time I will request that license text be
added to the package when it isn't in the tarball is if the license is
not one of the commonly seen licenses or if the license itself is
variable.  So if you're adding clauses to BSD or you're using the
historical permission and disclaimer (which is a multiple-choice
thing) or if your package says "These files are under the
RandomCrapWare license" then I'll want to see it.

At some point it has to come down to common sense.  Unfortunately I
suspect that excessive formalization will lead to us having a list of
licenses which are acceptable to not include if they aren't in the

 - J<

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list