Re: Fedora Extras License Audit

[Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 freenet de>]

On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 08:01 -0800, Christopher Stone wrote:
> On 1/24/07, Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh farsiweb info> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 23:45 -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> > > Fedora Core is actually done. Has been done for a while. :)
> >
> > Which brings me to the question of what we should do with complicated
> > cases of mixed licensing.
> >
> > For example, Pango's License field says "LGPL", while it also contains
> > parts that are not LGPL-ed, but dual licensed under GPL and FreeType
> > Project License (which is not a subset of LGPL).
> >
> > I guess that would make Pango a dual licensed library, one license would
> > be the GPL, and the other would be LGPL for some parts and FTL for some
> > others. (It's currently marked LGPL only.)
> >
> > How are we supposed to document such things in the License field?
> 
> I had this discussion on IRC a few days ago and the conclusion was you
> either label it as GPL, or split the package up into a sub package
> that has the LGPL parts.

Fundamental counter-question: Do the GPL infected parts of pango impose
the GPL on non-GPL'ed applications being linked against it?

If yes, then this would be the end of gtk and GNOME, definitely the end
of pango.

Ralf