GPL and LGPL not acceptable for Fedora!

[Rahul Sundaram]

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:

> The order of operations goes like this:
> 
> 1. What does the code say? If it specifies a version, that's what it is.
> 2. Does the code conflict with itself? (file1.c and file2.c are compiled
> together but have different licensing)
> 2A. Are the conflicting licenses compatible?
> 2AA. Does one license overpower the other one? (GPL/LGPL does this) If
> so, the strictest license wins.
> 3. What does the documentation say? This signals the author(s)
> intentions from a legal perspective, although, not as binding as in the
> source. If the documentation specifies a version when the source does
> not, then we can use the documentation as our source. NOTE: COPYING does
> not count as documentation, since the author(s) didn't write it.
> 4. If neither the source, nor the upstream composed documentation says
> anything about the license version, then it could be under _ANY_ version
> of the GPL. The version listed in COPYING is irrelevant from this
> perspective.
> 
> Now, keep in mind that most upstreams are probably leaving the
> versioning out by accident. If you get to case 4, you definitely want to
> let upstream know that you are unable to determine the applicable
> version(s) of the license from the source and documentation. They'll
> almost certainly let you know what their intended license version is,
> and (hopefully) correct it in the upstream source.

You might want to put this in the licensing wiki page. This looks like 
repeatedly asked for information.

Rahul