On 07/22/2013 05:23 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> Originally I thought I understood the multiple license stuff in the
> packaging guidelines, but it's become apparent that it's not
> understood by some people, or maybe just me.
>
> If an executable is build from sources with a mix of GPLv2+ and
> LGPLv2+ and MIT, does the License tag need to include all three, or
> just GPLv2+? Examples, package reviews for psi4 and 64tass:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951582
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973448
In the situation you describe, by honoring the license terms of GPLv2+
on that binary, you're also honoring the terms of LGPLv2+ and MIT, so we
permit people to mark that package as simply "GPLv2+".
However, it is also correct to list out all the licenses in play
("GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and MIT"). It is left to the packager to determine
which option they feel comfortable using.
~tom
==
Fedora Project
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
