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

Re: no restriction license?

On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 04:57:53PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Erm, I thought the "License: foo and bar" was only necessary if there are 
> different licensed binaries in the same rpm (not srpm, think subpackages), 
> and that if one binary has code from multiple compatible licenses that then 
> only the strictest license should be named for that binary, as that is the 
> effective license for that binary then. So if I have a package with 3 
> binaries, one all GPLv2+ code, one GPLv2+ and some BSD code, and one GPLv2+ 
> and LGPLv2+ code, then all 3 binaries are effectively licensed under GPLv2+ 
> and thus the License tag is just: "GPLv2+" and not "GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and 
> BSD".

This is not what is written here:

If your package contains files which are under multiple, distinct, and
independent licenses, then the spec must reflect this by using "and" as
a separator. Fedora maintainers are highly encouraged to avoid this
scenario whenever reasonably possible, by dividing files into
subpackages (subpackages can each have their own License: field).

It should certainly be precised; When speaking about files is it about
source files? Or only packaged files?

If when source files are under LGPLv2+ and MIT the the license should be
LGPLv2+ and not LGPLv2+ and MIT, it should be explained on the page.


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