[Fedora-packaging] License Tag Draft

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 00:29 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 06:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 20:50 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > > Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa at redhat.com) said: 
> > > > > 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.
> > > 
> > > 73 packages that I have installed have some sort of multiple licensing.
> > 
> > ?? 90% of all perl packages are multiple licensed.
> > These alone make several 100s of packages.
> 
> 90% of perl packages are _dual_ licensed,
Yes, GPL or Artistic.

>  and thus, wouldn't need to do
> this.
I don't see this.

> > 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.

A RH owned BSD'ish license is something completely different as a UCB
owned BSD'ish license. They probably are compatible but that's all.

Different copyright owners, different licensors => different licenses.

This hits esp. when licensors change their licenses, as it had been
several times been the case in case of the X11 licenses.

Ralf