On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 12:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruno Wolff III <bruno@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > lordsawar has a gfdl manual that is installed. Does that need to be reflected > > in the license tag such that it should be GPLv2+ and GFDL1.1+, instead of > > just GPLv2+? > > legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx would be the right place to ask that, > but I'm pretty sure the answer you'll get is "yes". > > You could possibly split the manual into a documentation subpackage > with its own License: tag if you wanted to keep the license tags clear. FWIW, when I have a package with a complex licensing case, I usually stick a comment in the spec explaining exactly what stuff is under each license. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
