On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 01:36:37PM -0500, Tom Callaway wrote: > On 02/06/2013 01:27 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 11:31:23AM -0500, Tom Callaway wrote: > >> 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 > > > > I think (pedantically) the correct license tag should be: > > (CDDL or GPLv2 with exceptions) and ASL 2.0 > > That is at least what other Glassfish derived packages use since it > > isn't "pure" GPLv2 only. > > Yes. But it doesn't change the analysis. :) Agreed :) If you strip the exception and the CDDL then you are still just left with the GPLv2 and ASL 2.0 choice which Fedora doesn't want. But I think that the intention of Oracle is for GPLV2 with exceptions and ASL 2.0 to be a valid combination since that is what they use for every project that combines GPLv2 (only) code with ASL 2.0 code (like glassfish, netbeans, openjdk, etc.). So while choosing CDDL and ASL 2.0 in this case is technically a valid choice it seems nicer (more in line with upstream) to leave the optional GPLv2 with exceptions choice intact. If only because that is consistent with how other packages currently do it and so you can more easily find this class of sources. And pedantically you might have to actually strip the exception and the GPL header from the source files if you don't want them. At least that is what the headers say. Cheers, Mark _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
