On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 08:01 -0800, Christopher Stone wrote: > On 1/24/07, Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 23:45 -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > > > Fedora Core is actually done. Has been done for a while. :) > > > > 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? > > I had this discussion on IRC a few days ago and the conclusion was you > either label it as GPL, or split the package up into a sub package > that has the LGPL parts. Fundamental counter-question: Do the GPL infected parts of pango impose the GPL on non-GPL'ed applications being linked against it? If yes, then this would be the end of gtk and GNOME, definitely the end of pango. Ralf -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
