https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #25 from Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fed...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to comment #24) > > Doesn't that mean that it's possible to release it under GPLv3 at our option? Yes, there is no licensing conflict as GPLv2+ software is a superclass of GPLv3+ software by definition. In the case that a software package contains code from multiple (and compatible) licenses, these licenses need to be listed in the License tag. Please see [1] for the relevnt guideline and an example, and [2] for a real-life example. Note that the examples give detailed explanation about the licenses of individual source files. > > There is no bugtracker or mailinglist for upstream as far as i know. I have > contacted upstream about the patches and documentation. > Thanks, please indicate this in the specfile as a comment. See [3] for the relevant guideline. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios [2] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=dpkg.git;a=blob;f=dpkg.spec;h=70e29fc42ad [3] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
