Follow-up Comment #7, task #16658 (group administration): [comment #6 comment #6:] > [comment #5 comment #5:] >> If a file is generated automatically, it doesn't mean it isn't >> copyrightable, does it? > > Correct, it isn't copyrightable.
In other words, if I unpack your tarball and then automatically generate an archive containing all files from it, then that generated archive will be uncopyrightable. Is that what you are saying? > The "AND" operator means that compliance with multiple licenses is needed. I > got this license expression with `dnf info` which seems to show overly > verbose license expressions, possibly generated from per-file license data. > I'm more awake now, so I now know that "Apache-2.0" (permissive) and > "CC0-1.0" (public domain) are redundant because they are compatible with > GPL. > > Also I now noticed that there's a non-GPL-compatible license "CC-BY-SA-4.0". To be precise, it's [//www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccbysa only compatible with GPLv3]. > I looked at the project's README, and it says that this license is for the > documentation. My project does not require installing the documentation. > > In conclusion, this dependency is GPL-3.0-or-later. I see; thank you! [comment #4 comment #4:] > - cargo, <https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo>, MIT OR Apache-2.0 Its README.md says it contains some software under more licenses (LICENSE-THIRD-PARTY). Could you analyze it? While at it, there is no single [//www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat "MIT" license]: people use it to refer to a number of various licenses. > - rust, <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust>, MIT OR Apache-2.0 The COPYRIGHT file says (the emphasis is mine), > *Except as otherwise noted*, Rust is licensed... What do you think about it? _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?16658> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.nongnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
