On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 03:57:29PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > >> I'd contest this. Whenever Open Source standards come up in a > > > >> discussion, Debian is always the gold reference. You know it can be > > > >> done > > > >> right and it is: in Debian. > > > > Or you can look at the Redhat approach as a minimal working one. > > > > You know it can be done much easier and still work: in Redhat. > > > > > > (in case it hasn't already been discussed in this thread, but don't > > > bother rehashing...): What are they doing differently? > > rpm packages record the package license information in a one-line License: > > field. > > Is your point that 9 lines can be reduced to one, or that 100 lines can > be reduced to one? I'll repeat my point:
You know it can be done much easier and still work: in Redhat. > If you are talking about omitting some licensing, then I fail to > recognize how that can be a "gold standard" which I believe is what you > claimed above. I'm just saying that there is an approach of providing a gold standard and there are other approaches. The project decides what to provide. -- WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
