Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"HdG" == Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx> writes:
HdG> Erm, can we word that as "let License: refer to the license of
HdG> the parts of the sources used to build the binaries. IOW not any
HdG> licenses inherited from libraries used"
Please read the logs; perhaps my summary was deficient. Which is why
I usually avoid attempting to summarize, and will remind myself to
avoid doing so in the future.
Okay, the logs clear up my first issue, but still leave the rest of my mail
open, I'm especially curious how I should handle my example at the end.
---
And even with the clarification, I'm not at all sure this is wise. I think it
would be better to say that this practice is concidered OK, because a packager
is not expected to trace all the licenses of all linked in libs (and their
deps), but that if the packager knows that a more restrictive license from a
lib makes the package itself more restrictively licensed then the package
source license, that the packager then is encouraged to put in the more
restrictive license?
This is esp important for libs, so that people can check license issues with
libs, without having to walk the entire dep chain.
For example I've just split of the id3tag plugin for imlib2 into its own
subpackage because libid3tag is GPL licensed, whereas imlib and its other deps
are MIT/BSD (ish), and I've used GPLv2+ as License: field for this subpackage.
Regards,
Hans
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
