Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913254 --- Comment #5 from Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #3) > licensecheck.txt from fedora-review contains (file paths omitted): > BSD (4 clause) ISC > LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) > LGPL (v2 or later) > GPL (v2 or later) > GPL (v3 or later) > Unknown or generated #it's GPLv2+ > BSD (4 clause) > MIT/X11 (BSD like) > Public domain BSD (3 clause) > BSD (3 clause) ISC > LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) > ISC > *No copyright* Public domain > *No copyright* BSD (2 clause) > GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) > BSD (3 clause) > BSD (2 clause) > zlib/libpng > BSD > > I did not find any licensing issue myself. > > Newlib's homepage states: > """It is a conglomeration of several library parts, all under free software > licenses that make them easily usable on embedded products.""" Correct. That's what I was referring to above. > So I did not find any issue. This question is: Which license will your toolchain be under and which license will the binaries compiled/linked against your newlib be under? As newlib linked binaries are statically linked, and if not applying the "runtime vs. source tarball" license separation, but using the "GPL umbrella", your toolchain and all compiled binaries automatically are GPLv3'ed (rsp. the sources required to be GPLv3 compatible). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MMMLr3wBTI&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review