[Fedora-packaging] License Tag Draft

Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa at redhat.com
Fri Jul 27 06:21:10 UTC 2007

> I don't see this.

Perhaps I've not been clear on when you would need to generate a
license/file list.

When a package has a consistent license (or dual/triple license) for all
of its files (not including docs or content), it does not need to have a
license file list.

It is only when the package has multiple files with differing licenses
that this is useful, and thus, required. 

> > > Not worth mentioning KDE/Qt which typically are licensed GPL*+QPL.
> > > 
> > > Also I am still missing a detailed list of all tags you want to force us
> > > to use for BSD*ish, X11*ish and other licenses 
> > 
> > These aren't licenses. Either it is BSD or X11 or it is something else.
> BS. Of cause they are licenses.

OK, let me rephrase. Yes, these items are licenses, but "BSD-ish" is not
a license. Merely changing the copyright holder in the BSD license text
does _not_ make the license not BSD. It is only when the terms of the
license are altered by the copyright holder that the license stops being
BSD. At that point, the license isn't BSD, it is something new.
Depending on what those changes are, the new license is either ok for
Fedora or it is not. When this new license gets submitted for approval,
it will be added to the Licensing table, and given a new short name,
with a link to the Licensing text.

"BSD-ish" is as useless as "Distributable", in that it tells us nothing
about the potential license compatibility. Two packages with "BSD-ish"
as a license could be identical or wholly incompatible, and this is
precisely the problem that we're trying to avoid.


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list