Originally I thought I understood the multiple license stuff in the packaging guidelines, but it's become apparent that it's not understood by some people, or maybe just me.
If an executable is build from sources with a mix of GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and MIT, does the License tag need to include all three, or just GPLv2+? Examples, package reviews for psi4 and 64tass: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951582 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973448
Thanks! Eric
On 07/22/2013 05:23 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
Originally I thought I understood the multiple license stuff in the packaging guidelines, but it's become apparent that it's not understood by some people, or maybe just me.
If an executable is build from sources with a mix of GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and MIT, does the License tag need to include all three, or just GPLv2+? Examples, package reviews for psi4 and 64tass: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951582 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973448
In the situation you describe, by honoring the license terms of GPLv2+ on that binary, you're also honoring the terms of LGPLv2+ and MIT, so we permit people to mark that package as simply "GPLv2+".
However, it is also correct to list out all the licenses in play ("GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and MIT"). It is left to the packager to determine which option they feel comfortable using.
~tom
== Fedora Project
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Tom Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
so we permit people to mark that package as simply "GPLv2+". However, it is also correct to list out all the licenses in play ("GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and MIT"). It is left to the packager to determine which option they feel comfortable using.
Thanks for the clarification. That makes perfect sense.
Eric
-
Eric Smith -
Tom Callaway