[Fedora-packaging] License Tag Draft
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
# 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 126.96.36.199-27.fc7
Load : 0.56 0.50 0.45
More information about the Fedora-packaging