Fedora Extras License Audit

Christopher Stone chris.stone at gmail.com
Wed Jan 24 16:01:03 UTC 2007


On 1/24/07, Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh at 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.




More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list