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

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Mon Apr 20 16:06:28 UTC 2009


Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> On 04/20/2009 06:28 AM, Mattias Ellert wrote:
>>> The question at hand is not whether the tarball contains inlined or
>>> detached licenses. The question is which tarball the guideline refers
>>> to. If it is the large upstream installer it does include a detached
>>> license file. If it is the extracted tarball it does not.
>> *puts on his Fedora Legal hat*
>>
>> Does the tarball that you're using as Source0 (or whatever Source lines
>> are in the spec) contain a separate (and relevant) license text file? If
>> so, you MUST have it as %doc. If not, you (the packager) can choose to
>> add it to the package as %doc if you want, but you are NOT required to
>> do so.
>>
> But the packager is generating the tarball listed in Source0....so
> wouldn't this then be that the packager must include the license from
> the original upstream tarball used to generate the Source0 tarball.

If the original tarball contains one, yes.

>  And
> preferably, they should include that license in the Source0 tarball?
IMO, not only "preferable", but they likely must include it, because 
their works is a derivative work of other parties.




More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list