On 02/02/2011 12:19 AM, Christian Boltz wrote:
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 ;-))
Why don't you suggest to our friend Jorge (hope he doesn't spam this list ) that he dual license with WTFPL. Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org