On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 06:58:51PM +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2020 18:11:32 +0100, J. Randall Owens wrote:On 08/05/2020 17:33, David Cantrell wrote:Thank you for both your replies. We know the breakdown of the licenses in the different files (`licensecheck` provides us with it, and is run as part of Fedora review). The query primarily is whether the licensing of the various individual files makes the "effective" license to be GPLv3+ or if it should be noted to be GPLv2+ and GPLv3+. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F The licensecheck output from the review is also attached.
In this case the effective license would be GPLv3+ since the GPLv2+ code becomes GPLv3+ when combined with GPLv3+ code. I think you should use 'GPLv3+' in the License tag. Thanks, -- David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> Red Hat, Inc. | Boston, MA | EST5EDT
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
