On 11/16/2009 06:03 PM, Christian Krause wrote: > I'm a little bit unsure about: > - Does the fact, that the library is statically linked, affects the > compatibility or does the same rules apply as for dynamic linking? For the purposes of Fedora's licensing, no, it doesn't really make a difference. > - Since the LGPL sources would be in the src.rpm, do we have to mention > both licenses in the spec file? You can, but you do not need to. We determine License based on the binaries: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License:_field Since the binary is a combination of the LGPLv2+ static library and the GPLv2+ application code, while technically, the resulting work is LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+, by honoring the terms of the GPLv2+, you are always honoring the terms of LGPLv2+, so it is not necessary to explicitly list it in the License tag. ~spot _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
