On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 07:55:43PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 03:46:02PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 11:10:34AM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > However, some packagers absolutely insist on duplicating license files
> > (say, once in the main package, and again in the -devel package) and
> > this issue keeps coming up.
>
> And it'll keep coming up in future too.
>
> We are distributing binary packages which you can download
> independently from
>
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/development/i386/os/Pa...
> using just a web browser or 'wget'. Web browsers and wget don't
> understand RPM dependencies, and RPM files can be unpacked by a
> variety of software, not just the rpm program.
>
> Some of those binary packages have the license stripped from
> them. The GPLv2 clearly says you should not do this:
>
> 1. [...] and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this
> License along with the Program.
>
So if legal says that it's okay to rely on rpm dependencies to do this for
us, you'd still insist on doing your own thing?
If it was brought to their attention that there is other software that
can unpack individual RPMs, and they gave a detailed response (not
just "okay"), then I'd be interested in reading that response.
Nuanced legal opinions are always interesting to read.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat
http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming blog:
http://rwmj.wordpress.com
Fedora now supports 80 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#)
http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora