On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 22:00 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote: > Laca: > > > On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 17:22 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote: > >> Shouldn't all new spec-files have a "License:" field in the header > >> which explains the license? Most of our spec-files already have > >> this. > > > > In RPM, the License tag is required. I think it's useful to have > > them in our spec files too, but we now have more detailed info > > in the copyright files. > > Right, but the RE team plans to use the modulediffs script to > generate the report that Dee uses to determine when we need to do > OSR. When a module changes license, this triggers a new OSR. Thus, > we should be making an effort to ensure that the License field in > the spec-file is accurate.
Okay, but then we really should review our existing spec files because in the past we didn't pay enough attention to the correctness of the License field. We should also standardise the contents, for example GPLv2 or GPLv3 instead of just GPL. Laca
