Hi, On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Reinhard Max wrote:
> BTW, how does the license package approach fit with licenses that > require that the license text be included in any binary distribution? As > packages can be downloaded and installed without also downloading the > licenses package, people could view this as a license violation. They can only do that if they install the package with some options which make the errors from unresolved dependencies be ignored. After all we _do_ distribute and include the license with the binary distribution (in the repo, via dependencies). If you see that as not being enough, then you probably reason that the license must be included in the .rpm file itself. Now, what if there are subpackages? Currently the license is only contained in one of those subpackages probably, would that be a violation too? In the strict reasoning from above it would have to be invalid, and I don't think we want to go that route. Hence, for inclusion purposes we need to define explicit dependencies as fullfilling those must-be-included requests, and then it's okay if the license text itself comes from another package, as long as it will be installed (without heavy user interaction) with that very package. Ciao, Michael. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
