[Fedora-packaging] License Tag Draft
rc040203 at freenet.de
Fri Jul 27 04:50:58 UTC 2007
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
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.
More information about the Fedora-packaging