>>>>> "CK" == Christian Krause <chkr@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: CK> http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html#Exhibit1 Which is conveniently on our licensing pages as MIT: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Modern_Style_without_sublicense_.28Unicode.29 CK> Otherwise the package contains only GPLv3+ source. I have two CK> questions: What would be the correct License: entry in the spec CK> file? "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 more info. 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. - J< _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
