License for package scummvm

[Christian Krause]

Hi,

during the update of the package scummvm I reviewed its license and
stumbled over some difficulties:

- the main parts of the source code seem to be GPLv2+:
https://github.com/scummvm/scummvm/blob/branch-2-2/COPYING

- however, parts of scummvm are using a variety of BSD-like licenses as
well as LGPLv2+, please see the various COPYING.* files here:
https://github.com/scummvm/scummvm/tree/branch-2-2

As far as I understand, these additional licenses are compatible with
GPLv2+.

My concrete question is:

Is there a need to list the other licenses in the "License" tag as well or
is "GPLv2+" sufficient? If all licenses need to be listed, would that be in
this case:
"GPLv2+ and BSD and LGPLv2.1+ and OFL" ?

Note 1: It looks like that the TTF fonts under GPLv3+ (COPYING.FREEFONT)
are not installed in Fedora (but they are present in the src package).

Note 2: The Suse distribution seems to use "GPL-2.0+" and Debian has
references to all licenses:
https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main
/s/scummvm/scummvm_2.2.0+dfsg1-1_copyright

Thank you very much in advance for the advice.

Best regards,
Christian

[Ben Cotton]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 4:18 PM Christian Krause  wrote:
> Is there a need to list the other licenses in the "License" tag as well or is "GPLv2+" sufficient? If all licenses need to be listed, would that be in this case:
> "GPLv2+ and BSD and LGPLv2.1+ and OFL" ?

Yes, you should record all of the relevant licenses as you listed.

[Andy Mender]

On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 at 17:40, Ben Cotton  wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 4:18 PM Christian Krause 
> wrote:
> > Is there a need to list the other licenses in the "License" tag as well
>
> or is "GPLv2+" sufficient? If all licenses need to be listed, would that be
> in this case:
> > "GPLv2+ and BSD and LGPLv2.1+ and OFL" ?
>
> Yes, you should record all of the relevant licenses as you listed.

Also, try to indicate which parts use which license in a comment above the
License field. That way if internal libraries get exchanged and their
license changes alongside, it will be easier to track that.

[Christian Krause]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 5:40 PM Ben Cotton  wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 4:18 PM Christian Krause 
> wrote:
> > Is there a need to list the other licenses in the "License" tag as well
>
> or is "GPLv2+" sufficient? If all licenses need to be listed, would that be
> in this case:
> > "GPLv2+ and BSD and LGPLv2.1+ and OFL" ?
>
> Yes, you should record all of the relevant licenses as you listed.

Thank you very much for the clarification. Regarding the fonts I have to
correct myself: the TTF fonts are part of the installed rpm package (in an
archive called fonts.dat). So I will use the following license tag:

License:        GPLv2+ and LGPLv2.1+ and GPLv3+ and BSD and OFL

Best regards,
Christian