Bug 659033
Summary: | Do we really need a tigervnc-license package? | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Scott Dowdle <dowdle> |
Component: | tigervnc | Assignee: | Adam Tkac <atkac> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | 14 | CC: | atkac, metherid, ovasik |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2010-12-06 08:15:43 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Scott Dowdle
2010-12-01 19:54:55 UTC
Pretty sure this change was done in response to http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2010-July/000631.html The idea behind this change to ensure that even if the user installs any one sub package, they will still get a copy of the license. One can either duplicate the license in every sub package or split it out and depend on it as has been done here. If you have suggestions on improving the process, do post to the Fedora Legal list as changes have to be adopted globally. Rahul, thanks for the background. AdamW posted a response to my personal blog about it so thanks to him too. I found the FAQ very informative and learned the capital of Ghana even. :) I looked in the Everything directory and the updates directories for "*-license* and that package was the only one that showed up. If this method is adopted by other packagers then we'll have a lot of -license packages. I don't think it is a good idea myself but I'm not a packager so what I think doesn't matter much. It would be nice if there were more of a set policy so that each packager isn't doing it a different way... but then again, I'm thinking there is a short list of ways. I'll consider joining the Fedora Legal list but being a legal layman, I'm not sure I could help much and would mostly lurk. Rahul's comment #1 is right. There are three independent tigervnc packages - tigervnc (viewer), tigervnc-server-minimal (Xvnc server) and tigervnc-server-module (libvnc.so module for Xorg). In my opinion it's better to have one separate tigervnc-license package than include license in each package. Closing as notabug. |