>>>> "CK" == Christian Krause
<chkr(a)plauener.de> writes:
CK>
http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html#Exhibit1
Which is conveniently on our licensing pages as MIT:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Modern_Style_without_sublice...
CK> Otherwise the package contains only GPLv3+ source. I have two
CK> questions: What would be the correct License: entry in the spec
CK> file?
"GPLv3+ and MIT" if the MIT-licensed data files are included directly
into the package; I suppose just GPLv3+ if they are somehow compiled
into a binary with the GPL code. If the former, also include a
comment in the spec indicating which files are under which license.
See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines for
more info.
CK> Is it necessary to provide the full text of this license?
It is only mandatory to include the license text in the package if it
is included within the upstream tarball.
- J<