[Fedora-legal-list] Please define "effective license" (for the love of consistency)

[Orcan Ogetbil]

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 12/12/2009 07:24 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:25 AM, Michael Schwendt  wrote:
>>>
>>> Fedora's Licensing Guidelines don't use the term "effective license"
>>> anywhere. Not even in the section on dual licensing, which is the scenario
>>> where the packager may choose to pick either license for the whole
>>> program.
>>>
>>> There is no such thing as an "effective license" related to the Mixed
>>> Source Licensing Scenario [1], because re-licensing a program, such as
>>> converting from LGPL to GPL, is not done implicitly or automatically.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks but that doesn't answer my question. Are so many people just
>> imagining things? Why does this inconsistency exist? I'd like to have
>> this cleared up so we won't have to discuss the same issue over and
>> over again.
>
> People are just confused. The issue has already been clarified. Is there
> still some specific confusion?

Okay. Whenever someone says "most restrictive license wins" again, I
will say "no", and will refer to this thread.

Thanks,
Orcan