Thank You for clarification. I will ask of upstream how it is with GPLv3 & GPLv3+. Cheers, Petr On 5.4.2016 13:52, Björn Esser wrote: > Hi! > > When looking at the github-repo, I found a file "LICENSE" [1], which states python-cheat is dual-licensed… Since the term "dual-licensing" usually means, that you can freely apply either combination of the named licenses, either using a chosen single license from the offered ones, or a combination of different licenses from the offered, the 'and' in 'MIT and GPLv3' is an enumerating 'and', not a logical one. In this this case it means: MIT or GPLv3+ or (MIT and GPLv3+). > > setup.py [2] states 'GPLv3', only… > > This is definitely a case for license-clarification with upstream; at least the LICENSE-file should precisely state, in which way the list of licenses applies to the software; whether one of them (and thus a randomly chose-able combination of any per file) at will of the user or *ALL* licenses together as one monolithic license (which definitely will obsolete the MIT-licensing, because GPLv3 is the most strict of them). > > Another thing to clarify: Is it GPLv3 or GPLv3+? LICENSE-file just references the GPLv3-full-text, which says 'or any later version of this license'… > > > Hope these lines help you at least a little bit… > > Cheers > Björn > > > [1] https://github.com/chrisallenlane/cheat/blob/master/LICENSE > [2] https://github.com/chrisallenlane/cheat/blob/master/setup.py#L9 > > > Am 05.04.2016 um 13:30 schrieb Petr Stodulka: >> Hi, >> I need an advice/feedback about licenses. I want to add package **python-cheat** to F25 (and maybe to F24 too). >> However, the project is now under MIT + GLPv3 licenses - not only some parts, it is meaned by upstream >> as whole project is MIT and GPLv3. From my point of view, there is not problem, if I uses just GPLv3 license >> in spec file - and append only GPLv3 license in the package. Can anyone (with better knowledge around licensing) >> give me feedback about this? From licensing guidelines [0] and MIT license, I guess just GPLv3 is OK. >> >> ---- some additional info about package ---- >> >> Btw, you can install the package from COPR repository already: >> # dnf enable pstodulk/python-cheat >> # dnf install python-cheat >> >> It requires for now python2, however it should be python3 compatible already. I will change it in future. >> >> Package has simiral signification as bash-completion. But can be usefull eather for your >> personal packages, scripts, ... too. One of the main use cases is learning using of new command >> line (new) tools. Do you know everybody how use e.g. docker? (ok, that's still missing, but I expect >> that we can spread list of the tools toghether in future, in similar way like bash-completion). >> And I can imagine how it makes things easier for new users who begin with Linux. >> >> However, I found used location for cheatsheet files unfriendly. I have proposed changes >> to upstream and make it all closer to bash-completion ideas. I hope that it could be resolved >> relatively soon so probably I will start process for new package in Fedora after changes. >> >> And missing man pages could be added. Probably README.md should be OK, just rewritten to man >> format. >> >> I will be glad for feedback, some another ideas, whatever around :-) >> >> Have a nice day, >> Petr >> >> [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios >> >> >> >> -- >> devel mailing list >> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
