On Feb 03, 11 00:53:39 +0200, Dave Plater wrote:
One of the new two new packages I've submitted to factory bears the text in the copying file : The LV2 header lv2.h is licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License, The LV2 data file lv2.ttl is licensed under a BSD-style license,
lv2.ttl? Ah, we are talking about multimedia:libs lv2core
What should I put in the License: field?
To be exact, I'd sugest License: LGPLv2.1+ ; X11 MIT ; GPLv2+ ; BSD3c The header of lv2.ttl comes very close to the archetypical MIT license. See http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php The 3-Clause BSD license is found in the script wav. The GPL license is found in the script autowaf.py. 'BSD' in the general sense could qualify as 'close enough', but it is unspecific. Although the GPL is the 'strongest' license, I'd still put LGPL first in the list, as this is the main License according to upstream. cheers, JW- -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de back to ascii! __/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 __/ (____/ /\ (/) | _____________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) SuSE. Supporting Linux since 1992. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org