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 #6 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-09 04:23:46 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > > the effective license is > > the most restrictive one, which in this case is GPLv2. > > Then your package still cannot use "License: GPLv2+" I know. The license tag on the package is wrong right now. I am just trying to figure out what is the best thing to put there. > Simply by building a program from a mixed sources project, you cannot > alter/hide the licensing that applies to the program. *sigh* Everybody is talking different. I don't know whom to believe. Once I did what you said for the kmplayer package. I put all the license names into the tag that belong to source files that get compiled into a final binary. Please see [1]. Upon consultation to spot, we were advised to cut the list and put the "effective license" there [2]. I will open another topic at fedora-legal list, as they are the most authorized people. [1] http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewvc/devel/kmplayer/kmplayer.spec?revision=1.7&view=markup [2] http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewvc/devel/kmplayer/kmplayer.spec?r1=1.10&r2=1.11 -- 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