License of .spec files

[Axel Thimm]

On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 06:35:06PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-08-19 at 18:24 +0200, Marek Mahut wrote:
> > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > On 19.08.2007 15:52, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>  
> > > IOW: I think putting a short license text in the spec files (e.g. this
> > > is "Public Domain" or "licensed as WTFPL" ) would be a good idea.
> > 
> > And what happens when I want to import (modified) spec file from other
> > project (upstream) licensed under GPLv2 for example?
> This spec clearly is a derived work. As such your spec file will have to
> have GPLv2 compatible license.

Well, not only compatible, but it will have to be GPLv2 itself. E.g.
you can't take a specfile from a GPL project and license the derived
specfile under the compatible BSD license.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070820/ea4ff8dc/attachment.sig>