Le lundi 13 février 2012 11:30:06 Tom Callaway a écrit : > If the package contains some libraries under LGPLv3+, and some binaries > which are under GPLv3+, then "License: LGPLv3+ and GPLv3+" is appropriate. The package contains some libraries (binaries) that are under LGPLv3+, and a huge set of C++ headers (.h files). That headers set is decomposed into "CGAL packages", with distinct functionality. Some of those packages (the foundations of CGAL, with low-level functionalities) are under LGPLv3+, and some other packages (higher level functionalities) are under GPLv3+. Maybe that would make sense to decompose the CGAL package into two, but there is only one upstream tarball. Users have to have a look at the license notice in the headers, or to the manual, to know which license applies to a given package. Actually, there is also five files taken from Boost libraries, and shipped inside the CGAL tarball, that are under the Boost Software License, v1.0. Should I say "License: LGPLv3+ and GPLv3+ and Boost"? -- Laurent Rineau http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LaurentRineau _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
