On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:01:05 +0330, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: > Which brings me to the question of what we should do with complicated > cases of mixed licensing. > > For example, Pango's License field says "LGPL", while it also contains > parts that are not LGPL-ed, but dual licensed under GPL and FreeType > Project License (which is not a subset of LGPL). > > I guess that would make Pango a dual licensed library, one license would > be the GPL, and the other would be LGPL for some parts and FTL for some > others. (It's currently marked LGPL only.) > > How are we supposed to document such things in the License field? The "License" field is insufficient. It is suitable for summing up the relevant licence acronyms, but it cannot serve as a substitute for the licence terms. If files included within a project are GPL'ed and other files are licensed under a different licence, the combined work must be GPL'ed, too. It cannot be LGPL'ed, because the LGPL is _less_ restrictive compared with the GPL. For LGPL, all files must be LGPL'ed. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
