[Fedora-packaging] Packaging of license file in case of extracted sources

[Jussi Lehtola]

On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 10:01 +0200, Mattias Ellert wrote:
> Then the question is how should the following guideline be interpreted:
> 
> "If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
> in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
> for the package must be included in %doc."
> 
> Does this text refer to the big gigantic installer or the extracted
> source tarfile in this case.

My 0.02€:

If everything in the gigantic tarball is under the same license, then it
should be included.

If the subpackages are from different upstreams and they are not under
the same license, then if no license file is distributed with the
subpackage it is not put into %doc.

Of course, the situation is trickier if the upstream tarball contains
many license files, e.g. COPYING.BSD, COPYING.MIT and COPYING.GPLv2; in
that case the license file should be included in the (sub)package rpm
even though the license file does not exist in the subpackage directory
of the upstream tarball.
-- 
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussilehtola at fedoraproject.org