[Bug 537325] Review Request: lv2-fil-plugins - Four-band parametric equalisers

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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 #17 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-17 23:21:30 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> That was the original license tag I set on this package (2.0-1). However,
> Michael pointed out that this is wrong. See comments 1-8 above. I also asked
> this on Fedora Legal list 
>   https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-December/msg00029.html
> 
> The outcome was "There is no such thing as effective license, or no such thing
> as most restrictive license wins. List all licenses included in the tag".
> 
> So I changed it to  LGPLv2+ and GPLv2 and GPLv2+

I find this to contradict item 1 and 2 in the following section of the Fedora
Licensing FAQ:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_should_I_handle_multiple_licensing_situations.3F

1. The source code contains some .c files which are GPLv2+ and some other .c
   files which are BSD. They're compiled together to form an executable. Since
   some of the files are licensed as GPL, the resulting executable is also GPL.
   The License tag should read: License: GPLv2+
   Note that you do NOT need to list BSD in the License tag, the License tag
   reflects the resulting, packaged, items in the binary RPM.
2. The source code contains some .c files which are GPLv2 and some other .c
   files which are GPLv2+. They're compiled together to form an executable.
   In this case, the stricter license wins, so the resulting executable is
   GPLv2. The License tag should read: License: GPLv2
   Note that you do NOT need to list GPLv2 and GPLv2+ in the License tag. 


Due to the way GPL is constructed ("You may not impose any further restrictions
on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.") - The most
restrictive license of GPL and any GPL compatible license is always GPL. If
none of the licenses involved was GPL I would agree with you that they should
all be listed, but since GPL is involved in this case, I still think the proper
License tag for this package is GPLv2.

-- 
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.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]