Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

[Orcan Ogetbil]

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>
>  If a subpackage is dependent (either implicitly or explicitly) upon a
>  base package (where a base package is defined as a resulting binary
>  package from the same source RPM which contains the appropriate
>  license texts as %doc), it is not necessary for that subpackage to
>  also include those license texts as %doc.
>
>  However, if a subpackage is independent of any base package (it does
>  not require it, either implicitly or explicitly), it must include
>  copies of any license texts (as present in the source) which are
>  applicable to the files contained within the subpackage.

What if the large base package requires a tiny subpackage?

For instance, package A has a small A-plugins subpackage and a small
A-fonts subpackage which carries only two fonts. Both the A-plugins
and the A-fonts subpackages can be used by other software (independent
of A), but the main A package needs these subpackages for its own
functionality, hence the base package A requires these subpackages.
Given that the subpackages carry the same license with the base
package A, what package or packages should carry the license file?

Orcan

PS: Congrats to everyone who read and understood the question.