On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 16:18 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 18:27 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > OK, I know this is going to be painful, but we need to solve this (FESCo > > is waiting for us to do it), and I think this is the cleanest way: > > > > Please review: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/LicenseTag > > and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing . > > > > We'll vote on it next week. > > > I think that's missing a scenario. > > Covered: > You can have License A or License B (Dual license) > > You can have License A on /usr/bin/foo and License B on /usr/bin/bar > (Multiple Licensing) > > Not Covered: > You can have License A on foo.c and License B on bar.c being linked > together to form /usr/bin/foobar (A different kind of multiple > licensing) Wouldn't that effectively be a dual license on /usr/bin/foobar? Except, it would be a dual AND instead of a dual OR. How about we call that "Mixed Source Licensing": === Mixed Source Licensing Scenario === In some cases, it is possible for a binary to be generated from multiple source files with compatible, but differing licenses. For example, it is possible that a binary is generated from a source file licensed as BSD with advertising, and another source file licensed as QPL (which specifies that modifications must be shipped as patches). In this scenario, we'd mark the license as (BSD with advertising && QPL). ~spot -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
