[Fedora-legal-list] package with data file from unicode.org

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

>>>>> "CK" == Christian Krause <chkr at plauener.de> writes:

CK> http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html#Exhibit1

Which is conveniently on our licensing pages as MIT:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Modern_Style_without_sublicense_.28Unicode.29

CK> Otherwise the package contains only GPLv3+ source.  I have two
CK> questions: What would be the correct License: entry in the spec
CK> file?

"GPLv3+ and MIT" if the MIT-licensed data files are included directly
into the package; I suppose just GPLv3+ if they are somehow compiled
into a binary with the GPL code.  If the former, also include a
comment in the spec indicating which files are under which license.
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines for
more info.

CK> Is it necessary to provide the full text of this license?

It is only mandatory to include the license text in the package if it
is included within the upstream tarball.

 - J<