On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 11:33 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 00:15 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > > > I should probably talk to Spot about that. > > > > So, the rule here is that we don't take outside linking into effect when > > marking the package's licensing. We go by what the source in the tarball > > tells us. Otherwise, it would become massively too complicated to figure > > it out for a lot of packages. > > I see that, but it presents a rather significant problem. > > Say we have something whose own license is LGPLv2+ - let's call it > Component B - linking against something whose license is GPLv3 > (Component C). > > Component B is then effectively GPLv3, but our license tags will not > reflect that. If there is something _else_ that in turn links against > Component B - call it Component A - and we want to find out whether > there's a license conflict, we will treat Component B, for license > checking purposes, as if it were LGPLv2+. But, for our purposes, it no > longer is - we can only consider it to be GPLv3. So we may say that > there's no problem with Component A linking against Component B, when > actually there is... Apropos, what's the license in case a GPL package links against OpenSSL? GPL with exceptions or what? Or is it even allowed? -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussilehtola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
