On 06/12/2017 04:44 PM, Vincent wrote:

Good afternoon,

I'm VincentS, a newbie on fedora packaging. I contact you about precisions on licenses for a new package.

Here is the log about sources licenses.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1271137

There is different licenses for all files. We think package license must be GPLv2+ and MIT and CC BY-SA.

Did I forget anything? What do you think about this?

Thanks in advance for your reply.

Well, I haven't audited the source directly, but it looks like you have a mix of interpreted code (Python) and compiled code (C++). Your compiled code is LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+ and MIT. The interpreted code is GPLv2+. If they both ended up in the same package, I would say that this is fine:

License: GPLv2+ and MIT and CC-BY-SA

If you wish, this is also correct:

License: GPLv2+ and (LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+ and MIT) and CC-BY-SA

~tom

Le Monday, June 12, 2017 10:44:16 PM CEST Vincent a écrit :

Good afternoon,

I'm VincentS, a newbie on fedora packaging. I contact you about precisions on licenses for a new package.

Here is the log about sources licenses.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1271137

There is different licenses for all files. We think package license must be GPLv2+ and MIT and CC BY-SA.

The log shows that there are files that are "GPL version 2 only". That prevents to use them with GPLv3 for example. So 'GPLv2+' is probably wrong, and should be 'GPLv2' or 'GPLv2+ and GPLv2'