>>>>> "NP" == Nils Philippsen <nils@redhat.com> writes:

NP> Legal question: is it better to put this in its own subpackage to be
NP> able to specify this individual license, or would GIMP better have
NP> "GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and (GPLv2 or GPLv3)" as its license?

This is covered by
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_S cenarios

Basically, you are encouraged to separate differently licensed pieces of
code into subpackages with different licensing. However, it is
sufficient to simply indicate all of the licenses in the License: tag
and include an explanation of which files in the binary package are
under which license. (Various methods for doing this are given in the
URL above.)

- J<
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Nils Philippsen wrote:
> Legal question: is it better to put this in its own subpackage to be
> able to specify this individual license, or would GIMP better have
> "GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and (GPLv2 or GPLv3)" as its license?

Not an actual answer to your question, but wouldn't the license of the PDF
plugin be GPLv3 only rather than (GPLv2 or GPLv3), considering that GIMP is
GPLv3+?

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel