Björn Persson: > 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? They don't "combine". The idea that they combine in some sort of logical sense regardless of the facts of a given packaging situation reflects a misunderstanding of the GPL (more specifically, a misunderstanding of FSF-popularized orthodox GPL interpretation). BTW this is also a problem I see in the likely use of the old license compatibility chart. It is pretty well accepted in the community that you can redistribute GPLv2-or-later code as 'GPLv2-only', though this has only rarely been done. However, the -or-later form of licensing is basically a kind of disjunctive dual license and at least for now we are retaining the existing policy of preserving, and noting in metadata, the existence of such an upstream dual license, except for the special case of a dual license where one part is not an allowed license (with a further preserved exception for Perl GPL|Artistic code). Richard _______________________________________________ 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
