https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770 --- Comment #23 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmavrogi@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Alec, is the situation with licenses that complicated? My understanding is that the combination of MIT+BSD+GPLv2+ = GPLv2+ . That is because GPLv2 has the strongest requirements on the final binary and the other licenses don't impose any additional requirements to GPLv2 clauses. For example the linux kernel includes (or included) BSD files but still is considered GPLv2. If I mention that the project license is GPLv2+ and MIT and Public Domain, it may imply it is triple-licensed which is not the case (one may not chose to distribute ocserv under MIT). The GPLv3 files are not relevant for licensing purposes as they are only applicable to building -autotools (and it's pretty unfortunate that auto-tools installs them). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review