On 08/26/2011 12:17 AM, Nathan O. wrote: > I am looking at > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text . > > It sounds to me that upstream must provide the COPYING file. No, this is a misinterpretation and overinterpretation
Upstreams need to license their works properly. How to do this is largely up to their discretion. Nothing obliges the to ship a "COPYING file". > I am > reviewing pipebench at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731219 > The issue with the one the upstream author provided contained some > problems in it according to rpmlint. Well, don't take rpmlint's output too seriously. Read it's output as "hints" but not as "mandatory". The fact rpmlint treats packages using an older FSF's address as error, to me is nothing but one of the many defects rpmlint suffers from. > The fix I read about the error was > to replace it with one from GNU's site. > I currently told the submitter > to include it from GNU's site and also notified upstream of the problem > with the COPYING file. > Should we wait for the upstream to provide the > COPYING file or have this as a temporary fix? As long as upstreams express their licensing clearly, you shouldn't do anything nor try to force anybody to do anything. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
