On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 22:11 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote: > 1) If some files of a program are BSD and some are GPLv2, is it > necessary to include the BSD license file in the rpm package (even if > upstream doesn't)? We don't require that you add any missing license files in these scenarios. You might want to recommend that upstream include a copy of the license, but as long as the license appears in the source code, this is not required (for BSD). The rule is: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, must be included as documentation. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > 2) Can someone take a look at the Adobe Glyph List license > [http://www.adobe.com/devnet/opentype/archives/glyphlist.txt] and > determine what is the appropriate rpm license field for it? Need to run that one past the lawyers... it is worded strangely. ~spot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
