https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290922
--- Comment #20 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #9) > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #8) > > Generic: > > [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > > Guidelines. > > > > biophysics/VClamp.cpp: *No copyright* LGPL (v3 or later) > > builtins/Func.cpp: *No copyright* LGPL (v3 or later) > > builtins/Function.cpp: *No copyright* LGPL (v3 or later) > > > > are managed by compiler; i think guidelines for "Mixed Source Licensing > > Scenario" may be imposed here. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ > > LicensingGuidelines#Mixed_Source_Licensing_Scenario > I don't think this actually applies: that paragraph talks about the case > where sources have two different licenses, and to satisfy the license you > have > to satisfy the constrains from both licenses (e.g. both "no advertising", and > "modifications as patches only"). But in this case we are mixing LGPL and > GPL. > GPL is a superset of LGPL, and also, GPL does not allow any additional > restrictions > to be added. So effectively, the binary package is distributed under the > terms of GPL, > and no additional constraints exists and no different licensing is available. While looking at a different review ticket, I found the relevant part of guidelines in the FAQ: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F It seems to match what I said above, but it's always good to have an authoritative source. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
