https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1335988 --- Comment #12 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #10) > (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #8) > > > # LGPLv3+: src/Fl_GDI_Printer.cxx, src/Flv_List.cc, src/Flv_Table.cc > > > # BSD: src/tinymt32* > > > License: GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and BSD > > > > Are files under BSD and LGPLv3+ and GPLv3+ combined into a single compiled > > binary? Then the license is just GPLv3+. The "License" tag is about the > > binary rpm, not the sources. > > # LGPLv3+: src/Fl_GDI_Printer.cxx, src/Flv_List.cc, src/Flv_Table.cc > # BSD: src/tinymt32* > > are involved during build. Is it not a Mixed Source Licensing Scenario ? > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > LicensingGuidelines#Mixed_Source_Licensing_Scenario Kind of. I think the licensing guidelines are not entirely consistent, and that section seems to allow specifying multiple licenses. But https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F recommends specifying just the effective license. And https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#How_should_I_handle_multiple_licensing_situations.3F explicitly talks about mixing GPL and BSD: > 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+ > > I'm afraid you'll have to repack the tarball to remove the non-free doc > > part, because the SRPM must be distributable. Removing it during package > > build is too late. > > We need to contact upstream. I'm waiting for confirmation of XCAS's forum > registration. Yeah. If they could resolve this upstream this would be a much better outcome. -- 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx