Re: [Fedora-packaging] Licensing guidelines suggestions

[Tom Callaway]

Copying fedora-legal-list (where we should start having more public
discussion).

On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 14:27 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
>  Hey Tom,
>  
>  Tom spot Callaway wrote:
>  > Eh, I suppose there is no difference. I'll nuke LGPL+ off the list.
>  
>  I suppose we'll need to let the few folks that updated their specs to
>  use LGPL+ then?  Here's the list:
>  
>  devel/Hermes/Hermes.spec:License:        LGPL+
>  devel/hunspell-ee/hunspell-ee.spec:License: LGPL+
>  devel/hunspell-en/hunspell-en.spec:License: LGPL+ and BSD
>  devel/hunspell-es/hunspell-es.spec:License: LGPL+
>  devel/hunspell-hr/hunspell-hr.spec:License: LGPL+ or SISSL
>  devel/hunspell-nl/hunspell-nl.spec:License: LGPL+
>  devel/hunspell-pl/hunspell-pl.spec:License: LGPL+ or GPL+ or MPLv1.1
>  devel/hunspell-sl/hunspell-sl.spec:License: LGPL+
>  devel/hunspell-th/hunspell-th.spec:License: LGPL+
>  devel/imlib/imlib.spec:License: LGPL+
>  devel/p7zip/p7zip.spec:License: LGPLv2 and (LGPL+ or CPL) 
Yeah. Would you mind emailing these folks, with apologies?

>  BTW, over 1000 packages now have the proper license tags.  That
> still
>  leaves a large amount with invalid tags, but I was looking for the
>  positive point of view for once. :)
>  
>  I've been running my little check-licenses.py script each day to
>  follow the progress.  There've been a few changes to the short names
>  since I started doing this.  Are you working with Ville to keep the
>  changes synced with rpmlint?  I'm using the config from rpmlint in my
>  tests and am wondering if there's an easier way to sync changes than
>  by doing diffs on the wiki?
>  
>  The attached diff attempts to sync up the changes to the short names
>  on the wiki with the rpmlint config.  Perhaps it will be useful to you
>  or Ville. 
We've talked about it, and we're going to resync when things quiet down
a bit. There are several licenses still out for review at the FSF.

~spot