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

[Björn Persson]

Tom Callaway wrote:
> I don't foresee any situation in which a file containing a list of
> copyright holders that is distinct and separate from the file containing
> the license text (pause to catch my breath) would be necessary to treat
> as %license. %doc should be sufficient there.
> 
> That said, if you end up in a situation where you (the packager) feels
> strongly that the upstream separation of copyright holders and license
> text would somehow cause the license text to be incomplete, feel free to
> either bring those specifics to this email list, or tag them both as
> %license and explain it in a comment in the spec file.

Thanks, that answers my second question. Then I'll continue including
lists of authors in the same subpackage as the license, but with %doc,
unless I come across some really special case.

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/20150303/cff42079/attachment.sig>