[Fedora-packaging] License Tag Draft

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Thu Jul 26 23:18:19 UTC 2007

On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 18:27 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> OK, I know this is going to be painful, but we need to solve this (FESCo
> is waiting for us to do it), and I think this is the cleanest way:
> Please review: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/LicenseTag
> and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing .
> We'll vote on it next week.
I think that's missing a scenario.

  You can have License A or License B  (Dual license)

  You can have License A on /usr/bin/foo and License B on /usr/bin/bar
(Multiple Licensing)

Not Covered:
  You can have License A on foo.c and License B on bar.c being linked
together to form /usr/bin/foobar (A different kind of multiple

With GPLv2 as one of the licenses, this shouldn't be an issue because
the GPLv2 states that you can't have additional restrictions so for our
purposes[1]_, saying the package is GPL is fine.  But there could be
code under two licenses in which this does matter, for instance BSD with
advert clause and a second license which specifies that modifications
must be shipped as patches on top of upstream.

[1]_: Provided that "our purposes" is internal package audit and not
information for developers.  Someone outside Fedora looking for code to
include in their project could be interested in knowing that 90%
of /usr/bin/foo is public domain and only one GPL source file makes the
whole thing GPL.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20070726/203116a4/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list