[Fedora-packaging] Re: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 22:18 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 09:10:07PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 11:57:40AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 16:53 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>  - Clarify where documentation should go.  Currently my practice has
> >>>>    been to put just the license file (if any) in the main package's %doc,
> >>>>    and the license file plus all other documentation & examples in
> >>>>    the devel subpackage.  This duplicates (only) the license file, but
> >>>>    that seems acceptable since we shouldn't distribute software without
> >>>>    its license.
> >>> -devel packages should Require the main package, thus, there really
> >>> isn't any need for the duplicate license copy.
> >>
> >> But you could still just install the main package and not devel, and
> >> then you are in the situation where Fedora has distributed a binary
> >> and basically removed the licensing information.  It doesn't feel like
> >> the right thing to do to me (but IANAL).
> >>
> >
> > No Spot means it the other way around, keep the license in the main package 
> > and drop it from the -devel one as that requires the main package anyways.

This is the "simplified rule-of-thumb", however there also are
situations where this isn't "entirely right".

e.g.
- application licenses may differ from library licenses (e.g. apps
GPL'ed, libraries LGPL'ed).

- run-time licenses may differ from devel-licenses (e.g. library uses
GPL as umbrella, while individual files in a devel-package (often
headers) are covered by less restrictive licenses, such as BSD.)

- library licenses may differ from source-code licenses (e.g. library is
using LGPL as umbrella, but individual files being used inside of a
library are covered by less restrictive licenses).

Ralf