[Fedora-packaging] License Tag Draft

Matthias Saou thias at spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net
Fri Jul 27 09:00:39 UTC 2007

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote :

> 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 .

That was an interesting read. Thanks for your hard work, spot!

A few comments, FWIW :

- Same as Bill, I prefer the "GPLv2+" style notations.

- To keep using "GPL or Artistic" for perl doesn't make much sense to
me, since we are trying to differentiate clearly the different GPL
versions. Is it "GPLv2+ or Artistic"? "GPLv2 or Artistic"?

- If we use only " and " and " or " (with spaces around them), wouldn't
the field still be reliably parseable, yet easier to read? And more
coherent with the "GPL* or Artistic" from the perl packages?

- I find having to detail the licenses in %files quite unpractical, and
possibly not the best suited for most cases, as I have the feeling that
the most common case of multiple-licensing I've come across is having
parts of the source code under a different compatible license, but then
having all libs/programs use it. So I think having comments inside the
spec file right above the License: tag might be more useful, something
like :

# The entire source code is GPLv2+ except foolib/ which is BSD
License: GPLv2+ and BSD


Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) - Linux kernel
Load : 0.56 0.50 0.45

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list