On Wed, 2007-07-25 at 13:26 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 25.07.2007 13:05, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 06:42:53 -0400
> Simo Sorce <ssorce(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> So a tool that marks samba as GPLv3 may raise a high number of false
>> positives. I guess many other projects will fall under the same
>> conditions.
>> [...]
> I think you're missing the point of the task. The task isn't to mark
> perfectly in every spec file exactly what a package contains. Instead
> it can mark the easy cases, and denote something in the hard cases so
> that when an issue arises, we can easily weed out the easy cases and
> focus on the hard ones manually.
In addition -- in some cases like the quoted one for samba it *might* be
the easiest and cleanest solution for everyone to just put the libs with
a different license into a different (sub)package.
This would only be sensible if we had a way to tag the license for the
source and the main binary package differently. Unless that exists, we
can only put "License: <all licenses combined>" into such a package
because you'd need to cover the source RPM.
Nils
--
Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp(a)redhat.com
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011