Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=537325 --- Comment #4 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-08 23:43:22 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > The conclusion is: > > License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and GPLv2 > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Mixed_Source_Licensing_Scenario > > By contacting the authors and asking them to clarify the licensing in the log.* > files, it would reduce to "GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+". The latter is due to the > unchanged lv2_ui.h license. Upstream may opt to change the licensing of that > file to GPLv2+ when following the guidelines in the LGPL paragraph 3. Yes, but when these files get compiled into one file, the effective license is the most restrictive one, which in this case is GPLv2. That's the way we've been doing. See for instance: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-November/msg00027.html If there were different files being distributed under different licenses in the same package, then we use "A and B and ..." in the license tag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review