Including GPL code in the source RPM only, for an ASL 2.0 package

[Pádraig Brady]

I'm currently packaging python-subunit at:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/908842

This is an ASL 2.0 project, but there is a single
python file used at build time only that is GPLv2.
I.E. this file is shipping in the tarball (srpm),
but removed from the rpms.

Is this a valid thing to do, or do we need
a tarball with this file removed?

Note even if I wanted to license the package
as "ASL 2.0 and GPLv2", I don't think that's possible,
as they're incompatible licenses:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html

thanks,
Pádraig.

[Tom Callaway]

On 05/29/2013 05:51 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> I'm currently packaging python-subunit at:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/908842
>
> This is an ASL 2.0 project, but there is a single
> python file used at build time only that is GPLv2.
> I.E. this file is shipping in the tarball (srpm),
> but removed from the rpms.
>
> Is this a valid thing to do, or do we need
> a tarball with this file removed?
>
> Note even if I wanted to license the package
> as "ASL 2.0 and GPLv2", I don't think that's possible,
> as they're incompatible licenses:
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html

It is not a problem. Just make sure it isn't in the binary rpms. You do
not need to regenerate the source tarball.

The License: field reflects the contents of the binary RPM, not the
SRPM. The SRPM just needs to be 100% free, and GPLv2 meets that.

~tom

==
Fedora Project