[Fedora-legal-list] Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Re: other licensing guidance
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 4:47 AM Petr Pisar <ppisar(a)redhat.com> wrote:
V Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 01:54:10PM -0600, Jilayne Lovejoy napsal(a):
> On 7/22/22 10:43 AM, Maxwell G wrote:
> > Jul 22, 2022 11:37:18 AM Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com>:
> >
> > > There is some stuff I see relating to license file inclusion
> > Are you talking about the `%golicenses` part? That's not a legal
> > guideline. The go macros just have a special way of installing licenses,
> > as opposed to marking them with %license in %files. This part should be
> > kept in the Go Packaging Guidelines.
> you're right, that is not a legal guideline - wrong link, too many windows
> open!
>
> This one has a bit (that is now covered in the new docs and outdated)
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Perl/#_license_tag
>
This is there because most of the Perl packages uses this license combination.
It helps packagers to identify the typical license correctly.
Feel free to copy (and reword) it into licensing guidelines. Then Perl
packaging guidelines will replace the section with a link to that advice in
licensing guidelines. Is it Ok? Please only make the advice linkable.
What do you think of this?
https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-legal-docs/-/blob/main/modules/ROO...
Note that we have an open issue to reassess the various pre-Artistic
2.0 versions of the Artistic License.
Richard