[Fedora-legal-list] package with data file from unicode.org
Jason L Tibbitts III
tibbs at math.uh.edu
Thu Feb 12 23:18:34 UTC 2009
>>>>> "CK" == Christian Krause <chkr at plauener.de> writes:
Which is conveniently on our licensing pages as MIT:
CK> Otherwise the package contains only GPLv3+ source. I have two
CK> questions: What would be the correct License: entry in the spec
"GPLv3+ and MIT" if the MIT-licensed data files are included directly
into the package; I suppose just GPLv3+ if they are somehow compiled
into a binary with the GPL code. If the former, also include a
comment in the spec indicating which files are under which license.
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines for
CK> Is it necessary to provide the full text of this license?
It is only mandatory to include the license text in the package if it
is included within the upstream tarball.
More information about the legal