FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Packaging

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-04-2009, 09:09 PM
Ray Van Dolson
 
Default Dual licensing question...

This is kind of a two part question. I have a package up for review[1]
that, per the author, is dual licensed GPL and Artistic. Only GPL is
accepted in Fedora.

Do I specify my License as just GPLv2+ or do I indicate it's dual
licensed even though Artistic is not allowed in Fedora?

Also, there was a bit of confusion on the licensing status of this
particular package. The PKG-INFO file indicates "Artistic" as the
license, but also lists GPL -- I think this is just a side effect of
one of the two licenses needing to be listed as "primary" on the pypi
page[2]. Note the License field there and then the Categories field.

I was able to contact the author, and he has indicated to me via email
that this package should indeed be dual licensed under GPL and
Artistic. This leads me to wonder a couple of things:

- Is the PKG-INFO as indicated above sufficient to demonstrate the
dual licensed nature of this package?
- If it's not, would including the email from the author as part of
the documentation be adequate?
- Failing that, is the only way to get the author to release a new
version of the package including license information and/or
updatin the pypi entry?

Guidance appreciated!

Ray

[1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488407#c4
[2]: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/text_table/0.02

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-04-2009, 09:21 PM
"Tom "spot" Callaway"
 
Default Dual licensing question...

On 03/04/2009 05:09 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> This is kind of a two part question. I have a package up for review[1]
> that, per the author, is dual licensed GPL and Artistic. Only GPL is
> accepted in Fedora.
>
> Do I specify my License as just GPLv2+ or do I indicate it's dual
> licensed even though Artistic is not allowed in Fedora?

We permit you to list the Artistic license on dual licensed perl bits,
like this:

License: GPLv2+ or Artistic

Make sure the source (or the reference email) actually says GPL version
2 or later. If it just says GPL, it should be "GPL+ or Artistic".

> Also, there was a bit of confusion on the licensing status of this
> particular package. The PKG-INFO file indicates "Artistic" as the
> license, but also lists GPL -- I think this is just a side effect of
> one of the two licenses needing to be listed as "primary" on the pypi
> page[2]. Note the License field there and then the Categories field.
>
> I was able to contact the author, and he has indicated to me via email
> that this package should indeed be dual licensed under GPL and
> Artistic. This leads me to wonder a couple of things:
>
> - Is the PKG-INFO as indicated above sufficient to demonstrate the
> dual licensed nature of this package?
> - If it's not, would including the email from the author as part of
> the documentation be adequate?

Including the email as a %doc file is sufficient.

Thanks,

~spot

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:51 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org