Im considering to package the Spotify client [1]: This is a binary without sources aimed for the nonfree section. Two issues are not immediately clear to me: -Package has a frightening attachment of included licenses [2]. Do I need to sort out all of these in the License: tag?! Or is there a loophole to just use "Re-distributable, no changes permitted" , which is the overall conditions from Spotify? - To make things work, I need to bundle some old libs (libssl, libcrypto) since I can't relink the spotify binary blob. Is this OK; given that these libs are private and not visible to other packages? Anyone, out there? --alec [1] http://community.spotify.com/t5/Desktop-Linux/bd-p/spotifylinux [2] http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/licenses.xhtml

2012/11/6 Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt;: > Im considering to package the Spotify client [1]: This is a binary without > sources aimed for the nonfree section. Two issues are not immediately > clear to me: > > -Package has a frightening attachment of included licenses [2]. Do I need > to sort out all of these in the License: tag?! Or is there a loophole to > just use "Re-distributable, no changes permitted" , which is the overall > conditions from Spotify? This disclamer is usually reserved for firmwares in fedora, but can apply to Proprietary software running on a CPU too. > - To make things work, I need to bundle some old libs (libssl, libcrypto) > since I can't relink the spotify binary blob. Is this OK; given that these > libs are private and not visible to other packages? It will need to be filtered from the RPM dependency extractor too, but this is usally expectable with closed source software, indeed. You are not allowed to strip them. Nicolas (kwizart)