From 3aa975dc1554fbb3584867ca41dfc102b06a2a55 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jilayne Lovejoy Date: Jul 29 2022 03:03:30 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Update LicensingGuidelines links (again) maybe the third time is a charm... Signed-off-by: Jilayne Lovejoy --- diff --git a/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc b/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc index 536eb96..0e84625 100644 --- a/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc +++ b/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc @@ -75,12 +75,12 @@ but maintainers must make every possible effort to be accurate when filling the The `License:` field refers to the licenses of the contents of the *_binary_* rpm. -This policy and examples can be found at xref:legal::license-field.adoc/[License: field in spec file]. +This policy and examples can be found at xref:legal::license-field.adoc[License: field in spec file]. === Valid License Short Names The `+License:+` field for new packages as of July 2022 must be filled with the appropriate SPDX license identifier or -expression from the list of xref:legal::allowed-licenses.adoc/[allowed licenses] for Fedora. +expression from the list of xref:legal::allowed-licenses.adoc[allowed licenses] for Fedora. Note that some licenses may be allowed for only certain types of material, e.g., fonts, content, or documentation. The https://spdx.org/licenses/[SPDX License List] provides identifiers for each individual license @@ -88,12 +88,12 @@ or exception based on a set of matching guidelines. SPDX license expressions cover situations where multiple licenses apply to a package, where there is a choice of a license, and where licenses are coupled with exceptions or additional permissions. -xref:legal::license-field.adoc/[License: field in Spec file] contains examples +xref:legal::license-field.adoc[License: field in Spec file] contains examples and further explanations for using SPDX expressions in the `License:` field. For more information on what to do if you find a license that is not on the Fedora list, does not have a corresponding SPDX license identifier or expression, or other process questions, -see xref:legal::license-review-process.adoc/[License Review Process]. +see xref:legal::license-review-process.adoc[License Review Process]. From e907767630789ed9ac77b75c645819a6b8f2e667 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jilayne Lovejoy Date: Jul 29 2022 03:45:43 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] fix link on Rust page too --- diff --git a/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/Rust.adoc b/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/Rust.adoc index e23a496..70f88a9 100644 --- a/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/Rust.adoc +++ b/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/Rust.adoc @@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ All rust packages MUST have `+ExclusiveArch: %{rust_arches}+`. == License for binary packages -See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field.adoc[License: field in Spec file] guidance specific to Rust. +See xref:legal::license-field.adoc[License: field in Spec file] guidance specific to Rust. == Miscellaneous