On 05/25/2010 04:18 PM, Martin Gieseking wrote: > Hi, > > I need some enlightenment about multiple license scenarios of packages. > Until now, I thought packagers should mention all distinct licenses in a > spec files's License field that are part of a tarball. Thus, if some > files are licensed under GPLv2+ and some under BSD, we get "GPLv2+ and > BSD". That's how I read the guidelines (e.g. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios) > > However, during a review > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=594943#c16) it was stated > that sources with compatible licenses like LGPLv2+ and BSD may be merged > to LGPLv2+. This is correct. In such cases, the LGPL acts as an "umbrella". I.e. the "package as a whole" is covered by the LGPL, while individual files are still licensed by their individual licenses. > I can't believe that, Due to the liberal nature of BSD licenses, such cases are very common. Most prominent example for such a case is glibc. As a whole "it's GPL'ed", but it contains files being covered my much more liberal licenses. Ralf -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
