no restriction license?

Hans de Goede j.w.r.degoede at
Thu Aug 16 14:57:53 UTC 2007

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 16:16 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 09:54:05AM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
>>> Is that the only license for Lesstif?
>> No, there are LGPLv2+, MIT and GPLv2+ parts.
>>> Strictly speaking, this isn't a license. This is copyright assignment
>>> with no restrictions.
>>> I haven't added it to the table yet, because so far, nothing has been
>>> wholly under this "license". It's not worth listing until we hit a case
>>> where this is the only "license" for a package.
>> I thought than when there are multiple licenses all must be listed with
>> and:
> Yes. Except for this. You don't have to list "no license". ;)

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".



More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list