https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298665
--- Comment #20 from Michal Schmidt <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Neil Horman from comment #19) > alex, I appreciate you looking into it, but I don't believe that the legal > dual licensing is going to be acceptable for fedora packaging (or Red Hat > for that matter). I'm going to ask Red Hat Legal to clarify this but it > seems to me that, while dual licensing is certainly a legal approach to take > to open source code, both licenses must be open source compatible for us to > pacakge the code in Fedora or RHEL. Neil, I don't think the dual license (GPLv2 or proprietary) is a problem for redistribution, but it can be problem w.r.t. contributing patches to upstream. The software is dual-licensed in the sense that the recipient can choose either one of the two licenses (GPLv2 or proprietary). So we can ignore the proprietary option and distribute the software under the terms of GPLv2. So far so good. Of course asking Legal is the right thing to do if you have any doubts. The only problem I can see is if we (or any other Free Software developer) develop a patch and send it back to Mellanox. If we contribute a patch under GPLv2, Mellanox will likely refuse to merge it, because then they couldn't distribute the resulting work under the proprietary license. Alex, how do you expect to handle patch contributions? Are you going to require copyright assignment agreements? -- 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
