[Fedora-packaging] License Tag Draft

Bill Nottingham notting at redhat.com
Fri Jul 27 13:43:19 UTC 2007

Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa at redhat.com) said: 
> > - Same as Bill, I prefer the "GPLv2+" style notations.
> Yeah, this makes sense to me, I'm going to change it when I get to work
> today.

One more change to the license table - a GPL or LGPL licensed package that
lacks any statement of what version that it's licensed under in the source
code/program output/accompanying docs is technically licensed under *any*
version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the version in whatever COPYING file
they include. So that would be GPL+, or GPLv1+.

> > # The entire source code is GPLv2+ except foolib/ which is BSD
> > License: GPLv2+ and BSD
> It seems fine to me. I think I'm going to redraft the wording for that
> section to simply say that "the package must contain a comment
> explaining the multiple licensing breakdown", and leave the actual
> implementation to the packager. This way, one could do as you've
> suggested, or as I originally drafted, or even say
> # For a breakdown of the licensing, see PACKAGE-LICENSING

Sounds reasonable.

Thanks for your work on this!


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list