Matthew Miller wrote:
All documentation related to Fedora licensing has moved to a new
section in Fedora Docs, which you can find at:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/
Several links to other sections are broken. All five links under
"Licensing in Fedora" should point to other pages instead of
non-existent sections of the same page. Several links on
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/ contain two
fragment identifiers. There can only be one. I haven't searched the
other pages for similar errors.
Many software packages consist of code with different free and open
source licenses. Previous practice often involved “simplification” of
the package license field when the packager believed that one license
subsumed the other — for example, using just “GPL” when the source code
includes parts licensed under a BSD-style license as well. Going
forward, packagers and reviewers should not make this kind of analysis,
and rather use (for example) “GPL-2.0-or-later AND MIT”. This approach
is easier for packagers to apply in a consistent way.
Does that also apply to licenses that explicitly say how they may be
combined? Are we supposed to write "GPL-3.0-or-later AND
GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-only" or do those
still combine into GPL-3.0-only?
Björn Persson