seth vidal wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 23:01 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
Got your attention? Good.
GPL and LGPL are NOT acceptable License tags for Fedora. You cannot
simply use "GPL" or "LGPL" as a license tag anymore.
You have to use one of the following tags:
GPL+, GPLv2, GPLv2+, GPLv3, GPLv3+, LGPLv2, LGPLv2+, LGPLv3, LGPLv3+
seahorse contains both GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ components
should I have it labeled as both?
That depends, do any of the build binaries contain only LGPLv2+ parts? If not,
then the GPL trumps the LGPL and the license tag should be just:
License: GPLv2+
If there are binaries which are build from LGPL code only, and these are in the
same rpm, then it would be:
License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+
However, assuming that the LGPL licensed stuff is a lib, which not only gets
used during building, but also installed under /usr/lib[64], then please
concider doing a -libs subpackage and use "License: GPL+" for the main package
and "License: LGPLv2+" for the -libss and -devel sub-packages. The idea behind
this tags is that interpackage licensing issues can be checked by a script, using:
License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+
Is not going to help this script, resulting in people still needing to check
things manually.
Regards,
Hans (Who has 2 packages of his 150 left todo and then the License tagging
operation is completed for me).
--
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
