Hi,
I've got a BSD-licensed library up for review[1]. All of the code for the library falls under the BSD license, but the package bundles an LGPLv3-licensed unit test framework [2]. The unit test framework is built and used in %check, but does not end up in the resulting binary RPM. My question is, do I need to include LGPLv3 in the package's license? Or, should I rm the LGPL source during %prep and exclude %check? The guidelines tend to indicate I don't[3] need to include LGPLv3 in the license field, but this particular case isn't treated in the multiple licensing situations[4].
Thanks,
Rich
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817193 [2] http://cu.danfis.cz [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#Does_the_Licen... [4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#Multiple_licen...
On 09/25/2012 11:24 PM, Rich Mattes wrote:
Hi,
I've got a BSD-licensed library up for review[1]. All of the code for the library falls under the BSD license, but the package bundles an LGPLv3-licensed unit test framework [2]. The unit test framework is built and used in %check, but does not end up in the resulting binary RPM. My question is, do I need to include LGPLv3 in the package's license? Or, should I rm the LGPL source during %prep and exclude %check? The guidelines tend to indicate I don't[3] need to include LGPLv3 in the license field, but this particular case isn't treated in the multiple licensing situations[4].
You don't need to include LGPLv3 in this case, because those bits do not end up in the binary RPM package.
~tom
== Fedora Project
-
Rich Mattes -
Tom Callaway