https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770 --- Comment #24 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi! (In reply to Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos from comment #23) > Hi Alec, is the situation with licenses that complicated? My understanding > is that the combination of MIT+BSD+GPLv2+ = GPLv2+ . No. It works as described in [1] > 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 don't really build autotools here. You build some files which are used to build the package. That said, you might very well be right in this. But there is still a lot of licenses. [1]http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios -- 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