no restriction license?

Hans de Goede j.w.r.degoede at
Thu Aug 16 16:51:32 UTC 2007

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:
> Quoting:
> 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.



More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list