https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298665 Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |avnerbh+mellanox@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |needinfo?(avnerbh+mellanox@ | |gmail.com) --- Comment #22 from Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Michal, thats a question for legal to answer. Dual Licensing can mean any number of things, including your interpretation, or others in which certain files are licensed exclusively under a specific license (DPDK does this, electing GPLv2 for some files, and BSD for others, and a proprietary license for yet others). Fedora typically treats a dual license scenario on a per-file basis (each file selects which of the dual licenses applies to it). Regardless, any non-open source compatible license requires legal approval to be packaged and distributed. However, its a moot point, since Mellanox is being kind enough to fix the packaging to be dual licensed BSD and GPLv2, which solves the problem for us, as both of those are compatible. alex, for your reference, here are the fedora license guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines Should they help guide your conversion. Thank you for taking the time to clear this additional hurdle. Please post a new spec and srpm here when you have one available. -- 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