[Fedora-legal-list] Can autotalent be packaged for Fedora?

[Orcan Ogetbil]

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 05/14/2010 03:27 PM, David Cornette wrote:
>> However, it is not included in the source distribution of autotalent, and the
>> ownership of mayer_fft.c seems less than clear to me.  Can autotalent be
>> packaged as is?  If it can be packaged, do we need to include the Pure Data
>> license file as a second source file in order to comply with that license? Or
>> does "If it were up to me, I'd say go do whatever you want with it" mean we
>> can do whatever we want with it?
>
> I think that autotalent is fine to be packaged as is, with
>
> License: GPLv2+ and BSD
>
> I would strongly recommend that you include the Pure Data license file,
> and, if upstream is alive, ask them to do so (and to properly note the
> license in the mayer_fft* files).
>

Hi, I have some general questions. What you say above is in direct
conflict with the review guideline in [1] which says:
"If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc."

My take on this guideline is, we shall put the license file to the
%doc that is in the source tarball (necessity) only if there exist one
(sufficiency). Thus we are not supposed to include external license
files in packages.

The questions are, am I interpreting the guideline wrong? Or are we
making an exception for this package? If yes, what grants an exception
and is this documented?

Orcan

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines