On 03/04/2009 05:09 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > 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? We permit you to list the Artistic license on dual licensed perl bits, like this: License: GPLv2+ or Artistic Make sure the source (or the reference email) actually says GPL version 2 or later. If it just says GPL, it should be "GPL+ or Artistic". > 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? Including the email as a %doc file is sufficient. Thanks, ~spot -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
