On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > 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. > Yes but you are missing one thing. The library is LGPLv2. It is not LGPLv2+. Doesn't it make the resultant binary GPLv2, without the + ? Orcan _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
