GPL and LGPL not acceptable for Fedora!

Hans de Goede j.w.r.degoede at
Thu Aug 16 05:31:36 UTC 2007

Kelly wrote:
> On Thursday, August 16, 2007 1:11:20 am Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> So if sourcecode doesn't mention a version but COPYING does, it's still
>> interpreted as "or any later version?"  Hm... that strikes me as odd.
> I BELIEVE what they're trying to say is that if both the source and COPYING 
> contain different licence numbers, the source trumps the COPYING file.
> Most of the time, the COPYING file is simply the GPL/LGPL copied verbatim from 
> the FSF site.  As a result, I can understand why they would say look at the 
> source code.
> However, I'd suspect in that case, the stuff in the COPYING is what counts.  I 
> BELIEVE that the point of the "check the source" rule is to avoid situations 
> where the COPYING file conflicts with the source itself.

<sigh>, fine don't believe me I've only license audited 148 packages sofar, so 
I probably don't know what I'm doing. But if you don't believe me then atleast 
RTFM, quoting:
"A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that 
it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is 
technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the 
version in whatever COPYING file they include."



More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list