License tag for single binary built from multiple sources under different licenses
- First Post
- Replies
- Stats
-
Go to
- ----- 2024 -----
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2023 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2022 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2021 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2020 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2019 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2018 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2017 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2016 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2015 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2014 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2013 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2012 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2011 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2010 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2009 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2008 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2007 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
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
Thanks!
Eric
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
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Tom Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
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.
Thanks for the clarification. That makes perfect sense.
Eric
3928
days inactive
3929
days old
2 comments
2 participants
tags (0)
participants (2)
-
Eric Smith -
Tom Callaway