On 11/02/2009 04:53 PM, Christian Krause wrote: > Is this license acceptable for Fedora too and if yes, what should I put > in RPM's License tag? If (and only if) clause 2.b is used instead of clause 2.a (the license explicitly gives you a choice), then the license is Free but GPL incompatible. I've added it to the list as "XSkat", use that in the License tag. > Do we have to handle the version in the rpm package differently or can > we assume that our regular NVR is sufficient to fulfill 2.b? You do need to handle it differently. I suggest that you simply always add a .0 to the end of the upstream version in the RPM package. You need to do this, and not simply use the regular NVR to fulfill 2.b, because the license explicitly specifies the versioning schema x.y.z, which is different from how RPM displays it (x.y-z). Just add a dummy .0 to the end of the version then increment the Release field like any other package. The RPM changelog is sufficient to meet the other requirement of 2.b, to "clearly state who last changed the program". The license page for XSkat also covers this, in case any other program uses this license (or code from XSkat). ~spot _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
