On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 12/12/2009 07:24 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:25 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: >>> >>> Fedora's Licensing Guidelines don't use the term "effective license" >>> anywhere. Not even in the section on dual licensing, which is the scenario >>> where the packager may choose to pick either license for the whole >>> program. >>> >>> There is no such thing as an "effective license" related to the Mixed >>> Source Licensing Scenario [1], because re-licensing a program, such as >>> converting from LGPL to GPL, is not done implicitly or automatically. >>> >> >> Thanks but that doesn't answer my question. Are so many people just >> imagining things? Why does this inconsistency exist? I'd like to have >> this cleared up so we won't have to discuss the same issue over and >> over again. > > People are just confused. The issue has already been clarified. Is there > still some specific confusion? Okay. Whenever someone says "most restrictive license wins" again, I will say "no", and will refer to this thread. Thanks, Orcan _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
