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

Mattias Ellert mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se
Mon Apr 20 08:30:37 UTC 2009


mån 2009-04-20 klockan 11:15 +0300 skrev 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.

The upstream tarball contains one license file that applies to all code
developed by upstream. The upstream tarball also contain copies of the
source tree for some of its dependencies (openssl, libtool,
libxml2, ...) which also have separate license files. The presence of
these additional license files was given as an additional argument not
to include the license in the packages by the reviewer exercising this
position. These additional licences are rather irrelevant since those
parts of the upstream tarball will never be packaged for Fedora, since
the Fedora packages for these dependences are used.

	Mattias

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 2272 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20090420/2a3ced46/attachment.bin>


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list