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

Re: Fedora Extras License Audit

On 1/24/07, Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh farsiweb info> wrote:
On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 23:45 -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> Fedora Core is actually done. Has been done for a while. :)

Which brings me to the question of what we should do with complicated
cases of mixed licensing.

For example, Pango's License field says "LGPL", while it also contains
parts that are not LGPL-ed, but dual licensed under GPL and FreeType
Project License (which is not a subset of LGPL).

I guess that would make Pango a dual licensed library, one license would
be the GPL, and the other would be LGPL for some parts and FTL for some
others. (It's currently marked LGPL only.)

How are we supposed to document such things in the License field?

I had this discussion on IRC a few days ago and the conclusion was you
either label it as GPL, or split the package up into a sub package
that has the LGPL parts.

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