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
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 ;)