This is kind of a two part question. I have a package up for review[1]
that, per the author, is dual licensed GPL and Artistic. Only GPL is
accepted in Fedora.
Do I specify my License as just GPLv2+ or do I indicate it's dual
licensed even though Artistic is not allowed in Fedora?
Also, there was a bit of confusion on the licensing status of this
particular package. The PKG-INFO file indicates "Artistic" as the
license, but also lists GPL -- I think this is just a side effect of
one of the two licenses needing to be listed as "primary" on the pypi
page[2]. Note the License field there and then the Categories field.
I was able to contact the author, and he has indicated to me via email
that this package should indeed be dual licensed under GPL and
Artistic. This leads me to wonder a couple of things:
- Is the PKG-INFO as indicated above sufficient to demonstrate the
dual licensed nature of this package?
- If it's not, would including the email from the author as part of
the documentation be adequate?
- Failing that, is the only way to get the author to release a new
version of the package including license information and/or
updatin the pypi entry?
Guidance appreciated!
Ray
[1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488407#c4
[2]: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/text_table/0.02
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
