[Bug 751083] Review Request: jetty-build-support - Jetty build support files

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751083

--- Comment #3 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni at redhat.com> 2011-11-07 04:02:25 EST ---
While it is true that source tarball has license files buried somewhere in it
structure, if you notice the %build section, the first thing I do is:

pushd %{name}

I.e. I don't really use whole repository (see upstream bug
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=362571). There is also a separate
bug about clarifying licensing situation
(https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=362646). 

So only the contents of main directory + %{name} subdirectory should be taken
into account because I don't use/build/install other sources. 

I also believe you slightly misunderstood the "All independent sub-packages
have license of their own" point. This rule is talking about RPM sub-packages
(for example %package javadoc), not sub-directories/maven modules. It means
that if sub-package (such as javadoc) doesn't have:

Requires: %{name}-%{version} ...

Then it should have a license of its own. This is meant to ensure that
whichever package you install you always get the license with it. Of course
this only applies if upstream provides separate license file (which the second
upstream bug is about).

So to finalize...it would be quite OK to block this review until upstream
provides clarification on the licensing. I believe it will be no problem for
Eclipse devs to add license files to the top of toolchain repository and then
we can proceed. I wouldn't feel comfortable infering licensing from contents of
src/main/resources of one sub-module.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.