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
> 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,
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. 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.
Fedora-packaging mailing list