[Fedora-packaging] Re: License tag in packages
chris.stone at gmail.com
Thu Jun 29 23:18:26 UTC 2006
On 6/29/06, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs at math.uh.edu> wrote:
> >>>>> "CS" == Christopher Stone <chris.stone at gmail.com> writes:
> CS> Personally I want as little liability on me as a packager as
> CS> possible.
> Note that this would essentially require no interpretation of the
> license whatever.
If indeed there is some liability issues on the packager on the
License field, I think then it should be discussed about placing a
weblink in the License field and have some type of standard such as:
License: Fedora Approved (GPL) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/..
The wiki page would then explain the different class of licenses
acceptable by Fedora and note that the (GPL) indicates a class of
licenses associated with GPL, etc.
Or even omitting the (GPL) part.
This would be ideal, but probably on a more realistic standpoint the
status quo will remain, that is the License field is up to the
packager and should just remain a should item on reviews.
However, I think there should be a consensus on what should be
considered "best practice" if the packager is in doubt.
More information about the Fedora-packaging