Sorry for bringing this age old thread back up again. But I am still getting contradictory claims. My original message was: On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 5:34 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > 1) I came across another review with the same license question. The > source files have one of the > GPLv2, GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ headers each. They get compiled and produce > 1 final binary executable. None of the headers (or other source code > files) go to the final RPM. > The conversation was concluded with the following explanation: On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:03 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? > > Rahul > However, during the review of the package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=537325 this issue came up again. Upon Michael Schwendt's warning, I have changed the license tag of this package from "GPLv2" to "GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and GPLv2", since there is no such thing as "the effective license". However the current reviewer points out that this is in contradiction with the guideline -- 2. The source code contains some .c files which are GPLv2 and some other .c files which are GPLv2+. They're compiled together to form an executable. In this case, the stricter license wins, so the resulting executable is GPLv2. The License tag should read: License: GPLv2 Note that you do NOT need to list GPLv2 and GPLv2+ in the License tag. -- from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_should_I_handle_multiple_licensing_situations.3F So I am back where I started. There is clearly a contradiction between what I was advised here on last December and the above guideline. Which one is correct? Thanks, Orcan _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal