Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (284 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] RC1 checkin deadline this week!!
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@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
List Navigation
Follow Ups