On 07/26/2010 02:53 PM, Chen Lei wrote: > 2010/7/27 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> On 07/19/2010 05:42 PM, M A Young wrote: >>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: >>> >>>> [xen-maint] xen: xen-doc-4.0.0-2.fc14.x86_64 >>>> xen-libs-4.0.0-2.fc14.x86_64 xen-hypervisor-4.0.0-2.fc14.x86_64 >>> >>> I am a co-maintainer of the xen package, and I am trying to work out what >>> the best way to comply with these changes since xen is rather a mess of >>> licenses - I count 25 files or symbolic links called COPYING or LICENSE in >>> the unpacked source and the base level COPYING file talks about license >>> conditions at the head of some files. They all seem to be basically GPL, >>> LGPL or BSD with one case of The "Artistic License". >>> Should I include all the COPYING or LICENSE files, one of each type of >>> license (though some of the license files have different md5sums even when >>> they claim to be the same license) or just the bottom level COPYING file? >> >> You're going to need to include all applicable license texts, sorry. >> >> ~spot >> -- > > If a GPL binary is compiled with mixed BSD and GPL source files, > should we also add the BSD license text along with GPL text? If the upstream provides a copy of an applicable license text with their source, you should package it as %doc. If they don't, you should ask them to add it. ~spot -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
