On 5/19/06, Carlo Calica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/19/06, Hisham Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/19/06, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2006/5/19, Carlo Calica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > How about Resource/LicenseAgreement which contains the license. I
> > > prefer this name because it reinforces the need to agree with it.
> >
> > I think this is good. To have one name of the license agreement file
> > for InstallPackage to read. This means, of course, that the package
> > maintainer have to rename the license file.
>
> Or perhaps doc/foobar-1.0/COPYING, to be compatible with and add no
> extra packager work for most packages out there? (sure, Compile could
> look for COPYING and copy/symlink it to Resources/LicenseAgreement,
> too.)
R/LicenseAgreement is only for licenses that need a click-thru. I've
flip flopped on storing license metadata. I now think it is a good
idea. The file is R/License. The first line contains the license
name, BSD, GPL, LGPL. The 2+ lines are the actual license. Creating
that file is the due deligence the recipe author does to ensure the
software is redistributable. Without it we can't make packages.
Compile could help recipe authors by storing a list of md5s for well
known license files. It's easy to make it spot a GPL "COPYING" file in
the source tarball, etc., and warn the recipe author when it can't do
the job by itself.
-- Hisham
_______________________________________________
gobolinux-devel mailing list
gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org
http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
