[Fedora-legal-list] [Fedora-packaging] questions about license file migration

[Björn Persson]

Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 04:38:16PM +0100, Björn Persson wrote:
> > 2: When a package has a list of authors separate from the license file,
> > should that list also be tagged as a license file, or is it considered
> > regular documentation? It seems to me that *who* gives out a license is
> > important information that belongs together with the license.  
> 
> With a big "I'm not Fedora Legal" disclaimer, I think the answer here
> is really... it depends.
> 
> The intent here is primarily to make it possible to exclude bulky
> documentation for containers and other space-constrained installations
> while keeping legally-required license statements in place. Authorship
> files may or may not be part of that.

Then I suppose I should ask Fedora Legal, so I'm CCing the legal list.

If it were a legal requirement, then I suppose it would also apply when
the author's name is written in a README file together with a lot of
other information.

I don't remember seeing any explicit requirement to include a separate
file with a list of authors. It just feels weird to have a license
without a licensor. There are some licenses that contain phrases like
"the above copyright notice", but in those cases it's in the same file.

Björn Persson
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signatur
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20150302/fd1d7c20/attachment.sig>