Licensing: dual licenses - icons

Rahul Sundaram sundaram at
Wed Sep 12 10:12:29 UTC 2007

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 12:06 +0200, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:
>> On 9/12/07, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> If upstream isn't sure about the license of the icons they picked they
>>> should remove and replace them with properly licensed icons, be it LGPL,
>>> GPL or another license. There are many such good icon sets.
>> Upstream IS SURE about the licenses of the icons see:
>> /usr/share/doc/kmenu-gnome-0.6.8/COPYING
>> As you can see icons are either GPL'd or LGPL'd.
>> Now, which license is appropriate ? GPLv2, LGPLv2 or GPLv2/LGPLv2 ?
>> As I can see GPLv2 is more appropriate. Do you second ?
> No. Your list mentions some icons to be GPL'ed and some to be LGPL'ed.
> I.e. if you want to use them as source files inside of one single
> package, GPL (rsp. GPLv2) is the _only_ possibility for this package's
> licensing.

Correct. When you combine packages with more permissive and less 
permissive copyleft licenses, the license with the least permissions 
apply to the combination.


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list