On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 00:28 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > 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. > Yes. > 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). > This mixes the operator for multiple licensing with mixed source licensing, though. Since I agree that this is another type of dual license, how about making parens [()] mandatory for dual licensing whether or not there are other licenses involved? Then we have: Separate built files are under separate licenses QPL && BSD Single built file is under one of multiple licenses (QPL || BSD) Single built file is under more than one license (QPL && BSD) Versions, as amended by notting: Specific version: v# Specific version or later: v#+ So, AIUI, Firefox would be under: License: (GPLv2+ || LGPLv2.1+ || MPLv1.1+) -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
