Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (165 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] addressing multi license issues
  • From: todd rme <toddrme2178@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 11:05:03 +0200
  • Message-id: <>
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Togan Muftuoglu <toganm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

As the new maintainer of the sawfish and its related packages, I am
doing some cleanup so they can be in Factory. Sawfish has two licenses
one which is GPL-2.0+ and the other one is Artistic-2.0 for the sounds
that comes with sawfish.

What is the best approach in this situation as part of my mind says
separate the sound files as a sub-package with its' own license while on
the other hand keeping them in one rpm is also logical and if this is
the approach to go how the license line is defined in the spec

License: GPL-2.0+ and Artistic-2.0
License: GPL-2.0+ or Artistic-2.0

Also speaking of the licenses, rpmlint complains about the incorrect fsf
address. I have send the patches regarding the address change to
upstream can those patches also be included in the spec to correct the
issue on packaging as well



Wouldn't splitting the sounds also let you set the sounds package as
noarch? That seems to be another benefit to doing it that way, since
it would be one less (probably large) package to store and distribute.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >