Re: Difficulty about package license

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Thanks for your reply Tom.


Le 12/06/2017 à 22:55, Tom Callaway a écrit :
> On 06/12/2017 04:44 PM, Vincent wrote:
>> Good afternoon,
>>
>> I'm VincentS, a newbie on fedora packaging. I contact you about
>> precisions on licenses for a new package.
>>
>> Here is the log about sources licenses.
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1271137
>>
>> There is different licenses for all files. We think package license must
>> be GPLv2+ and MIT and CC BY-SA.
>>
>> Did I forget anything? What do you think about this?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your reply.
> Well, I haven't audited the source directly, but it looks like you have
> a mix of interpreted code (Python) and compiled code (C++). Your
> compiled code is LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+ and MIT. The interpreted code is
> GPLv2+. If they both ended up in the same package, I would say that this
> is fine:
>
> License: GPLv2+ and MIT and CC-BY-SA
>
> If you wish, this is also correct:
>
> License: GPLv2+ and (LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+ and MIT) and CC-BY-SA
>
> ~tom

-- 
VincentS

GPG Key ID: 9EDE869D @ hkp://keys.fedoraproject.org
Empreinte: E4F6 EFB8 E37E FD8F 2D4A  EFF9 1C96 73CF 9EDE 869D
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux