[Fedora-packaging] License Tag Draft
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
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_, 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.
_: 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...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Fedora-packaging