Le lundi 13 février 2012 12:21:14 Tom Callaway a écrit : > 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+. I forgot to say that CGAL is mostly a set of libraries of C++ templates, like Boost libraries. So, most of its code are in the C++ headers. The headers are all in CGAL-devel. The CGAL package itself contains a few (binary) libraries, whose sources (and used headers) are all under LGPLv3+. -- Laurent Rineau http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LaurentRineau _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
