NOTE: Please publicize any license changes to your packages

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 07:33 +0100, Andy Green wrote:
> Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> 
> >> sort of automatic file checking would help flag problems.
> > In trivial cases such as the GPLv3 change, it could help.
> > 
> > In cases of packages changing from FOO-license v1.283 to BAR-license
> > v32.100 it doesn't. 
> 
> Wouldn't it notice the deletion of the FOO-license file at least though
> and flag it up?
If there is any, may-be - If there isn't any, no.

Also consider: Detached license files are legally questionable/doubtful.
What matters is the license inlined or referenced by each files. Non
copyright owner added licenses are even more questionable.

>   At least then someone
someone == Jef Spaleta or other people from the Board


> > In cases of packages pointing to web-sites, it
> 
> Yes I guess so, although it could wget the URL periodically and hash
> that (assuming there are no "today's date" and crud on the page)
Feel free to do so ... Feel free to do so if these URLs change or vanish ;)
 
> >>   Granted its
> >> not going to work for all packages, but it might help a lot in the
> >> specific case of entire project codebases transitioning to gpl3 from a
> >> previous license.
> > If you think so, I disagree. You are driving away contributors from
> > fedora, by imposing more and more bureaucracy. If  you really want this
> 
> The automated technique is a small burden if it works for most packages.
We already _have_ way too much bureaucracy in Fedora. 

>  Since care is taken about the license to get it into Fedora it is
> consistent to take some care about the license after it is in... and
> with fun things like "or later" now...
Feel free to do so - Without me. Shall the "Board" (Whatever
board-de-jour we might be talking about) and the dark forces surrounding
it inside of RH do so - Without me - Period.

Ralf