Matthew Miller wrote: > All documentation related to Fedora licensing has moved to a new > section in Fedora Docs, which you can find at: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/ Several links to other sections are broken. All five links under "Licensing in Fedora" should point to other pages instead of non-existent sections of the same page. Several links on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/ contain two fragment identifiers. There can only be one. I haven't searched the other pages for similar errors. > Many software packages consist of code with different free and open > source licenses. Previous practice often involved “simplification” of > the package license field when the packager believed that one license > subsumed the other — for example, using just “GPL” when the source code > includes parts licensed under a BSD-style license as well. Going > forward, packagers and reviewers should not make this kind of analysis, > and rather use (for example) “GPL-2.0-or-later AND MIT”. This approach > is easier for packagers to apply in a consistent way. Does that also apply to licenses that explicitly say how they may be combined? Are we supposed to write "GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-only" or do those still combine into GPL-3.0-only? Björn Persson
Attachment:
pgpaCjBCVeQT6.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur
_______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
