Le jeudi 26 juillet 2007 à 22:33 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit : > So, AIUI, Firefox would be under: > License: (GPLv2+ || LGPLv2.1+ || MPLv1.1+) This kind of notation is pretty useless. in theory many packages are dual or tri-licensed. In reality the multi-licensing if often collapsed due to deps (upstream or downstream) that impose one particular license. If we go the "or" route no one will check, and everyone will assume the most permissive license applies (even if it's not the case due to the packages fedora builds again) IMHO in the case of multi-licensing we should choose one of the possible licenses and stick with it. Only revisit the choice if another fedora package forces us to, and let the packager of this other package do the licensing analysis. This is different from the case where different bits of a component are under different licences. There we have no choice but carefully track licensing boundaries? -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
