On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 10:10 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 11:18:58PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > > 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. > > Indeed single binaries and libraries may be under other licenses, but > the src.rpm is GPL. No. > > 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. > > If it is a single .src.rpm, it does. Now, as you said above, if the GPL > part can be put in a subpackage, then the remaining subpackages could be > under another license. It does not, go back and read the GPL, the GPL does not apply to other programs/binaries source even if shipped on the same medium. And a package is a sort of convenience medium you use to ship sources. The distribution under GPL terms applies to all the sources that concur to build a single binary, but does not extend a bit more. So I can put in a src.rpm 2 related utilities that use 2 different file sets as sources (maybe sharing just a MIT licensed library also built as part of the package) and ship them. If one is GPLed the other does not become automatically GPLed (that would be viral! But the GPL is not). Simo. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
