[Fedora-legal-list] Request for Clarification: License of unit test framework
tcallawa at redhat.com
Thu Sep 27 03:31:42 UTC 2012
On 09/25/2012 11:24 PM, Rich Mattes wrote:
> I've got a BSD-licensed library up for review. All of the code for
> the library falls under the BSD license, but the package bundles an
> LGPLv3-licensed unit test framework . The unit test framework is
> built and used in %check, but does not end up in the resulting binary
> RPM. My question is, do I need to include LGPLv3 in the package's
> license? Or, should I rm the LGPL source during %prep and exclude
> %check? The guidelines tend to indicate I don't need to include
> LGPLv3 in the license field, but this particular case isn't treated in
> the multiple licensing situations.
You don't need to include LGPLv3 in this case, because those bits do not
end up in the binary RPM package.
More information about the legal