[Rpm-metadata] metadata script and sample

[Mark Hatle]

jbj asked me to suggest some constraints on a license field.

At MontaVista we have a very specific usage, and have specific constrains.

We allow the following text to be in the license field:

Apache
Artistic
Artistic/GPL
BSD
GPL
GPL/BSD
GPL/LGPL
GPL/Other
LGPL
LGPL/BSD
MPL/GPL
MVL
MVL Depl
MVL Dev
Other
Public Domain
X

The MVL* licenses are specific to some of our stuff.. (MontaVista 
Licensed is what MVL stands for...)

The "/" indicates that the package either contains things licensed by 
and/or the listed licenses.

The "Other" category is the catch all for things that don't fit the 
list.. (i.e. the zlib license)..  We don't list the zlib license because 
it was a single package license..  All of the other licenses were used 
by more then one package.. (or by a single "major" package and looked 
like they could be used by someone else...)

The question that comes to mind is the whole "/" syntax is fine for a 
human reading, but doesn't strike me as programmatically (i.e. XML) very 
correct.  It would be better to have a contrained list of licenses, if 
the "License" field does follow it gets set to "Other".. otherwise all 
of the licenses listed (seperated by '/'?) get represented in some way?

--Mark

Mark Hatle wrote:
> seth vidal wrote:
> 
>>
>>> I dunno why you want license and packager in depsolver metadata. i'd
>>> suggest dropping description too, summary might be useful however.
>>
>>
>>
>> For being able to do searches on those fields.
> 
> 
> There are a lot of folks (think commercial developers) that like to 
> search on license text..  So I think that is a good idea to make "as 
> available as possible."
> 
> --Mark
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rpm-metadata mailing list
> Rpm-metadata at lists.dulug.duke.edu
> https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/rpm-metadata
> 
> 
>