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

Re: Full Licence field

On 03/18/2009 03:45 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Simon Schampijer wrote:
>> Yes. So the main question is now if Fedora would be willing to ship
>> general licenses under /usr/share/common-licenses, I think.

I really don't want to do this. Here's why:

A) Many copyright holders make minor modifications to the licensing
terms. These modifications usually do not affect the rights granted by
the license (which is why we do not mark them as distinct and individual
licenses), but it would be incorrect to have these packages pointing to
general license texts when those do not apply.

B) Many licenses require that any distribution include the license text.
Red Hat Legal was very uncomfortable with us using a rpm dependency to
meet that requirement.

What I do think we were looking at doing is having rpm mark %license
texts in a unique way that is different from %doc. This would permit rpm
--excludedocs but retain the license texts.


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