[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: License change for ghostscript



On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 00:15 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:

> > I should probably talk to Spot about that.
> 
> So, the rule here is that we don't take outside linking into effect when 
> marking the package's licensing. We go by what the source in the tarball 
> tells us. Otherwise, it would become massively too complicated to figure 
> it out for a lot of packages.

I see that, but it presents a rather significant problem.

Say we have something whose own license is LGPLv2+ - let's call it
Component B - linking against something whose license is GPLv3
(Component C).

Component B is then effectively GPLv3, but our license tags will not
reflect that. If there is something _else_ that in turn links against
Component B - call it Component A - and we want to find out whether
there's a license conflict, we will treat Component B, for license
checking purposes, as if it were LGPLv2+. But, for our purposes, it no
longer is - we can only consider it to be GPLv3. So we may say that
there's no problem with Component A linking against Component B, when
actually there is...

-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]