Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=537325 --- Comment #17 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se> 2010-07-17 23:21:30 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16) > That was the original license tag I set on this package (2.0-1). However, > Michael pointed out that this is wrong. See comments 1-8 above. I also asked > this on Fedora Legal list > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-December/msg00029.html > > The outcome was "There is no such thing as effective license, or no such thing > as most restrictive license wins. List all licenses included in the tag". > > So I changed it to LGPLv2+ and GPLv2 and GPLv2+ I find this to contradict item 1 and 2 in the following section of the Fedora Licensing FAQ: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_should_I_handle_multiple_licensing_situations.3F 1. The source code contains some .c files which are GPLv2+ and some other .c files which are BSD. They're compiled together to form an executable. Since some of the files are licensed as GPL, the resulting executable is also GPL. The License tag should read: License: GPLv2+ Note that you do NOT need to list BSD in the License tag, the License tag reflects the resulting, packaged, items in the binary RPM. 2. The source code contains some .c files which are GPLv2 and some other .c files which are GPLv2+. They're compiled together to form an executable. In this case, the stricter license wins, so the resulting executable is GPLv2. The License tag should read: License: GPLv2 Note that you do NOT need to list GPLv2 and GPLv2+ in the License tag. Due to the way GPL is constructed ("You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.") - The most restrictive license of GPL and any GPL compatible license is always GPL. If none of the licenses involved was GPL I would agree with you that they should all be listed, but since GPL is involved in this case, I still think the proper License tag for this package is GPLv2. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- 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
