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

Re: no restriction license?

Patrice Dumas wrote:
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?

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.

It should then indeed be only LGPLv2+, and yes the documentation should be clearer on this.



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