On 02/13/2012 11:42 AM, Laurent Rineau wrote: > 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"? Well, the headers should be in a -devel package, separate from the libraries. Are all of these headers compiled into the libraries? If so, then it is likely that the libraries aren't really only LGPLv3+, but also GPLv3+. Again, it is hard to say for certain without actually looking at the code. ~tom == Fedora Project _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
