[Fedora-legal-list] License field: linked libraries considered?

[Jerry James]

I maintain a package whose sources are mostly MIT (with a couple of files
under a BSD license, and  one under the Boost license).  Upstream just
wrote to tell me that the License field on the package is wrong, because it
contains binaries that are linked with glpk, which is GPLv3.  They argue
that the binary package should therefore carry a "GPLv3" license tag,
unless I elect to build it without glpk support (which is optional), in
which case the current License tag of "MIT and BSD and Boost" would be
correct.

Is that true?  Do we consider library licenses when filling in the License
tag of a package?  It would be even worse than that, really, some kind of
transitive closure of all licenses on dependencies of all depths, where
some licenses "taint" the consuming package's license and some don't.

I do not see an answer to this question on
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines.  Thanks for
any clarification.
-- 
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20140809/0dd6447f/attachment.html>