[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: An idea for RPM -> License Agreement support

On 30/05/07, Hikaru Amano <kagesenshi 87 gmail com> wrote:
I'm not sure if i missed it .. anyway .. here goes

it would be useful to Third Parties if RPM have the ability to ask for
License Agreement before installing their package. I'm not a lawyer
but I believe this is useful in legal related stuff when distributing
softwares. I have seen a few RPM that are stored .bin just for the
sake of license agreement (Sun Java is the easiest example) and with
RPM having (optional) license agreement before installation , this
would reduce their worries bout licensing when packaging app for

and  ... Linux newbies can avoid the terminal more (I know this sounds
silly, the moment somebody says open terminal and run "chmod +x
file.bin", certain users freaks out , double clicking RPM is easier to
explain ).

any comments?

I doubt the reason Sun Java supplies their installer as an executable binary is so that the license is read and agreed to. All packages are subject to license review before inclusion into Fedora and as you agree/acknowledge that Fedora is provided as a distribution under the GPLv2 at install time I think license issues are covered - Red Hat legal can comment better however. If the real reason for your query is so we can offload "issues" such as the usual forbidden item stuff to the user then you are maybe missing the point. Fedora doesn't ship software with restrictive licenses, period. The reasons for this have been covered before ad infinitum and ad nauseum.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]