My one reservation with #1 is JavaScript. ATM we're allowing people to bundle JavaScript. When we choose to unbundle JavaScript, we're going to need to put a large amount of effort in. It would be nice but not absolutely necessary to have JavaScript Guidelines in place at that time so that we can handle things like:

• multiple versions
• whether to support "static" javascript or only "shared"
• where on the filesystem the libraries belong
• etc

I'm +1 to clarification #2.

Add " At this timeJavaScript intendedto be served to a web browser is specifically exempted from this but this will likely change in the future"

Changes approved with additional sentence on javascript and example changed from Javascript to Python.
Voting (+1: 7, 0:0, -1:0)

Announcement text:

Some clarification has been added to the sections dealing with bundled libraries, specifically that:

In this RPM packaging context, the definition of the term 'library' includes: compiled third party source code resulting in shared or static linkable files, interpreted third party source code such as Python, PHP and others. At this time JavaScript intended to be served to a web browser is specifically exempted from this but this will likely change in the future.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_libraries

Also, a note was added to make it clear that multiple licensing scenarios may be a good indicator of a bundled library situation:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios

(going out today, written up)