On Sun, 2008-09-14 at 17:11 +0200, Göran Uddeborg wrote: > Would you agree that the packaging of these scripts together with > ttf2pt1 proper be legal according to the license? Or should I exclude > them from the package anyway? So, given the context, I would agree. GPLv2 says: In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License It really does depend on the situation, are these scripts part of the "Program" or simply aggregated along with the "Program"? Given your description, it seems like they are just included for convenience. You can include them in the package if you want, and if you do, note them in the license tag like this: License: GPLv2+ and BSD with advertising Nevertheless, I would _still_ encourage upstream to drop the advertising clause, just to clear up the issue entirely. You should point out to them that the original BSD Author (University of Berkeley) has dropped the clause (for all items which they are the copyright holder), and ask them if they are willing to do the same (if they're the copyright holder for those scripts). See: ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change ~spot _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
