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

Re: License of .spec files



On 19.08.2007 18:35, 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?

Is that different from the situation we have today already? See below.

> This spec clearly is a derived work. As such your spec file will have to
> have GPLv2 compatible license.

Assuming that's right (¹) then you likely should not take parts of a
GPLed spec file even today afaics, as by the CLA you grand Red Hat/the
Fedora Project rights on the stuff you submit, which you can't, if the
stuff you commit is not yours.

Or am I missing something here?

CU
knurd

(¹) -- I'm not a licensing expert, but that might depend on the fact if
the part you take is copyrightable or if it's just trivial and not
protectable

(²) <CLA>You hereby grant to Red Hat, Inc., on behalf of the Project,
and to recipients of software distributed by the Project:

a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free,
irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of,
publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute your
Contribution and such derivative works;</CLA>


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