On Jul 25, 07 12:36:46 +0200, Reinhard Max wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 at 12:00, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
You wouldn't be able to install the package without breaking dependencies. That's annoying at least.
Right, but that wouldn't matter from a legal point of view. If a license requires us to include the license text with the binary package, we might break the license no matter how hard we make it to install the package without the license file being installed as well.
GPLv2 says (section 1.) "[...] and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program." So, is setting a symlink to a file and adding a dependency to the package enough to fulfill the "along with the Program" requirement?
Due to the symlink, the package has now one more dependency. It is simply an incomplete package, unless licenses.rpm is also installed. If the FSF insists on having a copy in each RPM, we can simply stop doing symlinks for GPL, and still have saved a tree with all the other licenses symlinked. cheers, Jw. -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de wide open suse_/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 (tm)__/ (____/ /\ (/) | __________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) "Oral agreements are worth about as much as the paper they are written on." --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org