Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #17 from Rex Dieter <[email protected]> --- Re: comment #13, multiple licensing I disagree that multiple licensing is applicable or required here. Note: per, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License:_field "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary rpm. When in doubt, ask." for example, BSD and GPLv2+ sources when combined to create a binary, that binary effectively is License: GPLv2+ . If a package shipped a binary generated from BSD sources only too, then multiple licensing would be appropriate: License: BSD and GPLv2+ However, doing it either way is often left to the discretion of the packager in question, but the guideline does encourage keeping things simpler by default. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=fKtRT0MrTw&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
