>>>>> "BW" == Bruno Wolff <bruno@xxxxxxxx> writes: BW> lordsawar has a gfdl manual that is installed. Does that need to be BW> reflected in the license tag such that it should be GPLv2+ and BW> GFDL1.1+, instead of just GPLv2+? The license tag covers whatever is in the binary (sub)package. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License:_field According to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios " If your package contains files which are under multiple, distinct, and independent licenses, then the spec must reflect this by using "and" as a separator. " I don't see anything in there that specifically excludes documentation, and we have had plenty of problems with licensing of documentation in the past, forcing documentation to be excluded from packages. The licensing page also includes mention of documentation licensing and gives short names for them (for use in License: tags). http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Documentation_Licenses If you want to keep the licensing pure within a particular package, you can push the documentation out to a subpackage which can carry its own license tag. This is not required, however. - J< _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
