Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

[Tom "spot" Callaway]

On 07/26/2010 02:53 PM, Chen Lei wrote:
> 2010/7/27 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com>:
>> On 07/19/2010 05:42 PM, M A Young wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>>>
>>>> [xen-maint] xen: xen-doc-4.0.0-2.fc14.x86_64
>>>> xen-libs-4.0.0-2.fc14.x86_64 xen-hypervisor-4.0.0-2.fc14.x86_64
>>>
>>> I am a co-maintainer of the xen package, and I am trying to work out what
>>> the best way to comply with these changes since xen is rather a mess of
>>> licenses - I count 25 files or symbolic links called COPYING or LICENSE in
>>> the unpacked source and the base level COPYING file talks about license
>>> conditions at the head of some files. They all seem to be basically GPL,
>>> LGPL or BSD with one case of The "Artistic License".
>>> Should I include all the COPYING or LICENSE files, one of each type of
>>> license (though some of the license files have different md5sums even when
>>> they claim to be the same license) or just the bottom level COPYING file?
>>
>> You're going to need to include all applicable license texts, sorry.
>>
>> ~spot
>> --
> 
> If a GPL binary is compiled with mixed BSD and GPL source files,
> should we also add the BSD license text along with GPL text?

If the upstream provides a copy of an applicable license text with their
source, you should package it as %doc. If they don't, you should ask
them to add it.

~spot