On 09/25/2012 11:24 PM, Rich Mattes wrote: > Hi, > > I've got a BSD-licensed library up for review[1]. All of the code for > the library falls under the BSD license, but the package bundles an > LGPLv3-licensed unit test framework [2]. The unit test framework is > built and used in %check, but does not end up in the resulting binary > RPM. My question is, do I need to include LGPLv3 in the package's > license? Or, should I rm the LGPL source during %prep and exclude > %check? The guidelines tend to indicate I don't[3] need to include > LGPLv3 in the license field, but this particular case isn't treated in > the multiple licensing situations[4]. You don't need to include LGPLv3 in this case, because those bits do not end up in the binary RPM package. ~tom == Fedora Project _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
