Bernie Innocenti wrote: > [cc += fedora-de...@] Sorry to reply late on this.
> Benj. Mako Hill wrote: >> <quote who="Simon Schampijer" date="Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 01:06:19PM +0100"> >>> we did show a full license in the Control Panel before. The path was >>> hard coded to where OLPC had placed the GPL license. What can we do to >>> meet the expectations of all the distributions that want to ship sugar? >> It would be a great thing if we got the major distributions to agree on >> a place to put common licenses. Debian puts them in >> '/usr/share/common-licenses'. I don't know where Red Hat puts them. > > RedHat does not optimize common licenses at all. > > Each package bears a copy of its own license, which is typically > installed in /usr/share/doc/<pkgname>/COPYING or similar. Yeah. Looks like Mandriva has /usr/share/common-licenses and per packages COPYING files. But the ones in /usr/share/common-licenses are named differently then those in Debian (GPL-2 not GPLv2). So for us, this means in the short term. Request each packager of Sugar to do the right thing for his distribution - or we place a COPYING file in the Sugar data folder and read it from there. >> If we got agreement in those two places and on a list of common licenses >> (even if one group just decides to symlink), we could get a majority of >> distributions once the changes propogate. > > Seems like a great idea to me... But I think it already came up some > time ago, and I vaguely remember that RH legal blocked it because the > license itself -- not just a symlink to it -- had to accompany the > package. > Of course, having a common place - /usr/share/common-licenses and having a naming standard for the licenses in there would be ideal for our use case. Thanks for your thoughts, Simon _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel