[Fedora-packaging] License Tag Draft

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 7/26/07, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/26/07, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 20:31 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > > Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa at redhat.com) said:
> > > > OK, I know this is going to be painful, but we need to solve this (FESCo
> > > > is waiting for us to do it), and I think this is the cleanest way:
> > > >
> > > > Please review: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/LicenseTag
> > > > and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing .
> > >
> > > For versioning, I prefer the much shorter 'GPLv2' (GPL version 2 only)
> > > and 'GPLv2+' (GPL version 2 or later).
> > >
> > > I think the tagging per file in comments is definitely overkill.
> >
> > Most packages won't need it, and for those that do, it will make the
> > task for whomever is auditing the package (re: me) much simpler.
> >
>
> Hmmm would it be simpler to just have an included PACKAGE-LICENSES
> file that you would then audit? That would keep the SPEC file from
> getting overly ugly in some cases, and make your job a lot simpler by
> giving out a tool that they could check to see if something
> matches/doesnt match the PACKAGE-LICENSES. We could then share that
> with our friends at Debian etc unless they have such a tool that we
> could use.

PS. Not trying to be a pain in the ass to the guy who took over
something I half assed did back in FC2 or so.. who just drove across
the country, and hasnt found where they serve grits in Boston (so he
can either have or avoid).


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"