https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873108 --- Comment #8 from Kalev Lember <klember@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Excellent, thanks for checking! Ohh, good point for the "effective" license and statically linked binary, I didn't realize that. Re combining MIT and GPLv3+ in one executable, I'm pretty sure the resulting binary is effectively licensed under the strictest of the two licenses, which in this case is GPLv3+. It would be 'MIT and GPLv3+' when one binary is MIT and another one is GPLv3+, but since they are compiled together into one binary, the "strictest" license wins. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#How_should_I_handle_multiple_licensing_situations.3F and in particular, point 1 there. I'll quote: <quote> 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+ Note that you do NOT need to list BSD in the License tag, the License tag reflects the resulting, packaged, items in the binary RPM. </quote> -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
