On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 03:32:20PM +0100, Tomas Pospisek wrote: > On 25.03.20 15:19, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 03:14:41PM +0100, Tomas Pospisek wrote: > >> On 25.03.20 14:43, Christian Kastner wrote: > >> > >>> This is not to say that licensing is an unimportant issue -- it clearly > >>> is. But our analyze-and-document down-to-the-file approach is on the > >>> other extreme end of the spectrum, and it causes lots of tiresome work > >>> that nobody apart from us seems to care about. > >> > >> I'd contest this. Whenever Open Source standards come up in a > >> discussion, Debian is always the gold reference. You know it can be done > >> right and it is: in Debian. > > Or you can look at the Redhat approach as a minimal working one. > > You know it can be done much easier and still work: in Redhat. > > (in case it hasn't already been discussed in this thread, but don't > bother rehashing...): What are they doing differently? rpm packages record the package license information in a one-line License: field. -- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature