[Fedora-legal-list] 'New' licenses

[Tom Callaway]

On 11/13/2012 06:07 AM, Jaromir Capik wrote:
> We've been told, that Fedora and RHEL RPMs differ
> in the licensing so that RHEL RPM specs should have
> listed licenses for binary and source packages, whilst
> the Fedora RPM specs should have listed licenses for
> binary packages only.
> 
> Is that right?
> 
> In fact we're redistributing the sources in form of SRPMs
> and that's why I see this only as a matter
> of our choice/policy/approach. 
> 
> Please, let me know if you could send us any statement
> about that, since we're already getting quite confused.

I can't comment on RHEL policies, but I do not believe there is a way to
indicate the License tag for a SRPM in a way that is different from the
binary RPMs (whereas, it is possible to indicate a different License tag
for each binary subpackage).

I do not see the value in listing the licenses for source files which
are not in the binary RPMs. If RPM supported a "SRPMLicense" field, then
we could be more complete there, but right now, it does not (AFAIK).

~tom

==
Fedora Project