[Fedora-packaging] License Tag Draft

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Thu Jul 26 23:47:14 UTC 2007

On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 19:25 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> And what is the purpose of commenting licenses in the file list, apart
> from making the packagers life miserable ?

I agree.  Or at least, I disagree with the example and scope in the
Draft.  I don't think we care what the license of an individual built
program is.  We might care what the license of a built library is.

Whether it's better to mark libraries with a spec comment or make it
mandatory to split libraries that are licensed differently from other
code, I don't know, though.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20070726/d94f21fb/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list