On 02/06/2013 11:13 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote: > Quoting David Xie (2013-02-06 16:53:57) >> Dear all, >> >> I am making a RPM package for javax.el-api, however I am not sure which license >> should I use for it. >> From page http://uel.java.net/, it claims it uses license CDDL and GPLv2. >> Should I add ASL 2.0 for it? >> >> Now I am using "(CDDL or GPLv2) and ASL 2.0". > > To give more context, this is related to a review we are working on[1]. > Basically all source files have a CDDL+GPL license header with ASL 2.0 being > listed because they apparently based their code on apache code. I uploaded > example header to fpaste[2]. The problem that I see here is that GPLv2 is incompatible with ASL 2.0. It is not possible to be in compliance with those licenses simultaneously. Apache thinks that ASL 2.0 is compatible with CDDL (see: http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#category-b ). So, for Fedora, while "(CDDL or GPLv2) and ASL 2.0" is technically correct, it is impossible for Fedora to ever choose GPLv2, so the simpler license tag would be: CDDL and ASL 2.0 ~tom == Fedora Project _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
