On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 22:03 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > I perhaps should have been more clear. A number of the licences > impose > particular (but resaonable, so GPLv3 compatible) restrictions > requiring > their particular notice be reproduced in various places. Complying > with > them is easy - I'll be including an aggregated list of these licences > in > a text file marked as %doc.
Without seeing the specifics, this seems fine. If this is the advertising clause from old BSD, that's a different story, but nothing with a University of California copyright should still have that clause. > > >From a Fedora perspective, any package that add exceptions to the > GPLv3 should be > > noted in its license tag with: > > > > License: GPLv3 with exceptions > > > > or > > > > License: GPLv3+ with exceptions > > > > ... depending on whether the license attribution states v3 only or > v3 or later. > > I'm presuming for these cases it would be GPLv3+ with permitted > restrictions? No, because in any cases where the GPL has been modified, we use "GPLv** with exceptions" to note that, for consistency. You'd be encouraged to put a comment in the spec file to elaborate, but not in the tag itself. Now that I understand this case clearly, in your scenario, the Fedora license tag would just be GPLv3+. If you wished to say: License: GPLv3+ and BSD That would also be correct and permissible. ~spot _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list