On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 22:03 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
I perhaps should have been more clear. A number of the licences
particular (but resaonable, so GPLv3 compatible) restrictions
their particular notice be reproduced in various places. Complying
them is easy - I'll be including an aggregated list of these licences
a text file marked as %doc.
Without seeing the specifics, this seems fine. If this is the
advertising clause from old BSD, that's a different story, but nothing
with a University of California copyright should still have that clause.
> >From a Fedora perspective, any package that add exceptions
GPLv3 should be
> noted in its license tag with:
> License: GPLv3 with exceptions
> License: GPLv3+ with exceptions
> ... depending on whether the license attribution states v3 only or
v3 or later.
I'm presuming for these cases it would be GPLv3+ with permitted
No, because in any cases where the GPL has been modified, we use "GPLv**
with exceptions" to note that, for consistency. You'd be encouraged to
put a comment in the spec file to elaborate, but not in the tag itself.
Now that I understand this case clearly, in your scenario, the Fedora
license tag would just be GPLv3+. If you wished to say:
License: GPLv3+ and BSD
That would also be correct and permissible.