Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (284 mails)

[Christian Boltz <opensuse@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

on Dienstag, 1. Februar 2011, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> On Monday 31 January 2011 22:48:13 Christian Boltz wrote:
> > - please reconsider if this header makes sense nowadays. Given the
> > fact
> >   that several packages are completely maintained by community
> >   members not employed by Novell/SUSE, I somehow doubt...

> It's impossible to have files without copyright headers and if there
> are none, we put the default copyright in place.

So if I put in something like

----------------------------------
(c) Christian Boltz 2010-2011

This spec file is licensed under GPL 2 or later.
----------------------------------

you will accept it?

> Of course we can make it a policy to only accept packages without
> copyright header - is that your suggestion?

I suggest not to silently add a copyright header ;-)

I'm not sure if a copyright/license header is needed at all for a 
specfile (IANAL).

If it is required (and missing), I'd propose the same way as for missing 
COPYING file [1] etc. when submitting a package to factory:
Open a bugreport, assign it to the submitter and ask him to add a 
copyright/license header to the specfile. Or (less paperwork) decline 
the SR and ask the submitter to add the copyright/license header and 
resubmit the package.


Regards,

Christian Boltz

[1] I went through the "missing COPYING file" already for patch2mail - 
    the COPYING file blew up the installed package size from 5k to 23k, 
    but the package is legally bug-free now ;-)
    I should have chosen the WTFPL to have a shorter license text ;-))

-- 
| imicha@kira:~> /etc/init.d/glaskugel start
| bash: /etc/init.d/glaskugel: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden
ist das ein grundsätzliches problem bei SuSE? 
oder fehlt mir ein RPM? [Michael Meyer in suse-linux]
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx