[Fedora-packaging] License Tag Draft

Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
Fri Jul 27 07:47:52 UTC 2007

Le jeudi 26 juillet 2007 à 22:33 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit :

> So, AIUI, Firefox would be under:
> License: (GPLv2+ || LGPLv2.1+ || MPLv1.1+)

This kind of notation is pretty useless. in theory many packages are
dual or tri-licensed. In reality the multi-licensing if often collapsed
due to deps (upstream or downstream) that impose one particular license.
If we go the "or" route no one will check, and everyone will assume the
most permissive license applies (even if it's not the case due to the
packages fedora builds again)

IMHO in the case of multi-licensing we should choose one of the possible
licenses and stick with it. Only revisit the choice if another fedora
package forces us to, and let the packager of this other package do the
licensing analysis.

This is different from the case where different bits of a component are
under different licences. There we have no choice but carefully track
licensing boundaries?

Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20070727/d820996c/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list