Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (140 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] don't understand the new licenses
On 10.01.2012 12:00, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le lundi 09 janvier 2012, à 15:26 +0100, Duncan Mac-Vicar P. a écrit :
On 12/25/2011 04:16 PM, Sascha Manns wrote:
Use the abbreviations from http://www.spdx.org/licenses/ instead,
in this case "GPL-3.0+".
Great that works. Thanks a lot. I've not seen that page before. Now i'ts a
part of my Bookmark Collection :-)

What is the convention when the package is licensed under various of
them? comma? "and"? "+" ?

It depends what you mean with more than one license.

If I'm not mistaken, it's something like this:

- "GPL-2.0+ ; LGPL-2.1+": aggregate (different files with different
licenses)
This form is another form for "and" - and not spdx.org, but something we
leave untouched for the time being because we used it in former times.


- "GPL-2.0+ or LGPL-2.1+": choice of licenses (dual-licensed software,
for instance)
Right. "or" is correct if the user can choose.


- "GPL-2.0+ and LGPL-2.1+": mix of licenses (not sure when this
happens, probably when some binary is made from code with two
compatible licenses?)
No, if a binary is made from code with two compatible licenses, one
license wins - and the other license is compatible with this (most often
it's the GPL that wins :).

"and" is correctly used in your ";" case - if your package is an
aggregate of GPL binaries and LGPL libraries. Licensewise it's better
to split the package into sub packages then and have one LGPL and one
GPL (of course always with the correct versioning) as suggested by spdx.org

Greetings, Stephan
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >