It says in the Licensing Guidelines , that every subpackage should either contain a license file, or require a base package, which already contains the license file. However, the debuginfo packages generated by rpmbuild meet neither of the requirements. In my opinion, rpmbuild should be fixed to generate the base package dependency, include the license file, or at least  should be fixed to reflect this exception.
I think this is entirely a question for legal. I also think that this is pointless lawyering, since the packager has no control over this and hence making sure that the packager knows that they don't have to worry about what they can't control just bloats he guidelines even more. Why do people keep wanting this kind of thing?
Anyway, if the legal folks mandate that the debuginfo packages have license files, then I suppose someone (not FPC) will need to figure out how to patch RPM to do that. If they don't, then we're as good as we've always been but if someone really thinks the guidelines need to state this explicitly then we can toss in a sentence somewhere.
I will fire off a message to legal.
I believe debuginfo packages should have license files. Though I think I understand your point that this is not an issue for FPC.
Since at this point things are in the hands of other people and FPC can't really do anything about it either way, I'm going to go ahead and close this.
to comment on this ticket.