From 1a789264558eee21cae8fb4d1a0232974e47b50d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jason Tibbitts <j@tib.bs>
Date: Aug 22 2023 16:47:19 +0000
Subject: Implement clarifications from #1223


Fixes #1223

---

diff --git a/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc b/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc
index eb0bb58..42400ff 100644
--- a/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc
+++ b/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc
@@ -30,7 +30,25 @@ 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
+flagged with the `+%license+` directive.
+
+Note that the path so flagged 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 it is acceptable for license files to be so flagged
+in a list which is generated programmatically
+and included using `+%files -f+`.
+This tagging is often done automatically by macros
+and not directly visible to the packager.
+What is important is not the visible presence of the `+%license+` directive
+but instead that all relevant license files included in a package 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.