[Fedora-packaging] License Tag Draft

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 00:28 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 16:18 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > 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.
> > 
> > Covered:
> >   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
> > licensing)
> 
> Wouldn't that effectively be a dual license on /usr/bin/foobar? Except,
> it would be a dual AND instead of a dual OR.
> 
Yes.

> How about we call that "Mixed Source Licensing":
> 
> === Mixed Source Licensing Scenario ===
> In some cases, it is possible for a binary to be generated from multiple 
> source files with compatible, but differing licenses. 
> For example, it is possible that a binary is generated from a source file
> licensed as BSD with advertising, and another source file licensed as QPL 
> (which specifies that modifications must be shipped as patches). In this 
> scenario, we'd mark the license as (BSD with advertising && QPL).
> 
This mixes the operator for multiple licensing with mixed source
licensing, though.  Since I agree that this is another type of dual
license, how about making parens [()] mandatory for dual licensing
whether or not there are other licenses involved?  Then we have:

Separate built files are under separate licenses QPL && BSD
Single built file is under one of multiple licenses (QPL || BSD)
Single built file is under more than one license (QPL && BSD)

Versions, as amended by notting:

Specific version: v#
Specific version or later: v#+

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

-Toshio
-------------- 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/20070726/1f027d0c/attachment.sig>