From 9dd2b3fec2e757c94eb5c900bece76a9ede767cd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jason Tibbitts <j@tib.bs>
Date: Jul 27 2023 19:24:47 +0000
Subject: Impleent clarifications from #1223


Fixes #1223

---

diff --git a/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc b/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc
index eb0bb58..88445e7 100644
--- a/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc
+++ b/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc
@@ -30,7 +30,21 @@ spec files for Fedora packages.
 If the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file,
 then that file,
 containing the text of the license(s) for the package
-must be included in `+%license+`.
+must be included in the `+%files+` list tagged as `+%license+`.
+
+Note that the path so tagged can be either relative or absolute.
+For relative paths, RPM will automatically copy them
+from the source directory into a subdirectory of
+`+%_defaultlicensedir+` (`+/usr/share/licenses+`).
+For absolute paths, RPM will simply tag the file in the final package
+as being a license file.
+
+Note also that is acceptable for license files to be so tagged
+in a list which is generated programmatically
+and included using `+%files -f+`.
+What is important is that all relevant license files included in a pacakge
+appear when using `+rpm -q --licensefiles+`.
+
 If the source package does not include the text of the license(s),
 the packager should contact upstream
 and encourage them to correct this mistake.