On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 04:57:53PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Erm, I thought the "License: foo and bar" was only necessary if there are > different licensed binaries in the same rpm (not srpm, think subpackages), > and that if one binary has code from multiple compatible licenses that then > only the strictest license should be named for that binary, as that is the > effective license for that binary then. So if I have a package with 3 > binaries, one all GPLv2+ code, one GPLv2+ and some BSD code, and one GPLv2+ > and LGPLv2+ code, then all 3 binaries are effectively licensed under GPLv2+ > and thus the License tag is just: "GPLv2+" and not "GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and > BSD". This is not what is written here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#head-5dcaa7704b32aabaddc2e709f328f48eea6c91de Quoting: If your package contains files which are under multiple, distinct, and independent licenses, then the spec must reflect this by using "and" as a separator. Fedora maintainers are highly encouraged to avoid this scenario whenever reasonably possible, by dividing files into subpackages (subpackages can each have their own License: field). It should certainly be precised; When speaking about files is it about source files? Or only packaged files? If when source files are under LGPLv2+ and MIT the the license should be LGPLv2+ and not LGPLv2+ and MIT, it should be explained on the page. -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
