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

Re: copyright precision

On 16/08/16 16:21, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Ian Jackson (2016-08-16 15:32:19)
Ghostscript packaged for Debian has a debian/copyright file with ~400
lines enumerating which source files are covered by which license (and
then another ~800 lines covering the actual licenses verbatim).

Fedora apparently covers the Ghostscript license in a single line:
"AGPLv3+ and Redistributable, no modification permitted".

Arguably, this is not according to the Fedora GL which states that if there are multiple licenses there should be a comment in the spec defining which license applies to what. This can be a simple one-liner (the simple case) or a per-file license breakdown. The fedora-review tool (usually) used when reviewing new packages creates a list for this purpose.

I guess that in this case the spec should be read "Everything is AGPL besides the firmware, which is redistributable/dont-modify". Something like this should thus be really included in the spec as a comment.

Coming from Fedora, I tend to think that this policy isn't that bad, adhering to the keep-it-simple rule ;)



Reply to: