On 07/22/2013 05:23 PM, Eric Smith wrote: > Originally I thought I understood the multiple license stuff in the > packaging guidelines, but it's become apparent that it's not > understood by some people, or maybe just me. > > If an executable is build from sources with a mix of GPLv2+ and > LGPLv2+ and MIT, does the License tag need to include all three, or > just GPLv2+? Examples, package reviews for psi4 and 64tass: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951582 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973448 In the situation you describe, by honoring the license terms of GPLv2+ on that binary, you're also honoring the terms of LGPLv2+ and MIT, so we permit people to mark that package as simply "GPLv2+". However, it is also correct to list out all the licenses in play ("GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and MIT"). It is left to the packager to determine which option they feel comfortable using. ~tom == Fedora Project _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
