[Sugar-devel] Full Licence field

[Simon Schampijer]

Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> [cc += fedora-devel@]

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