On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 19:17 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 11:30:08AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > > > > Thanks, though I'd argue mixing-n-matching licenses within a (single) > > > package is bad form. > > > > No, there are countless packages with differently licensed files in > > them. GPL+LGPL, GPL+(new)BSD, GPL+MIT, MIT+BSD, and on and on and on... > > In those cases the whole package is under the GPL (and, arguably > MIT/BSD are almost the same). When there are other mixes it may be less > clear. No, not really, you can have a package that provide different binaries. For example the samba package is mostly GPL software except for pam_winbind and nss_winbind, which are not under the GPL. The "whole package" does not mean much. It's the single binaries+libraries that count. I can very well see us distributing something like, let's say Xorg, with a little GPLed GUI in the same package, this does not make the whole package GPLed. Simo. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
