On 11/16/2009 06:03 PM, Christian Krause wrote:
> I'm a little bit unsure about:
> - Does the fact, that the library is statically linked, affects the
> compatibility or does the same rules apply as for dynamic linking?
For the purposes of Fedora's licensing, no, it doesn't really make a
> - Since the LGPL sources would be in the src.rpm, do we have to mention
> both licenses in the spec file?
You can, but you do not need to. We determine License based on the binaries:
Since the binary is a combination of the LGPLv2+ static library and the
GPLv2+ application code, while technically, the resulting work is
LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+, by honoring the terms of the GPLv2+, you are always
honoring the terms of LGPLv2+, so it is not necessary to explicitly list
it in the License tag.
Yes but you are missing one thing. The library is LGPLv2. It is not LGPLv2+.
Doesn't it make the resultant binary GPLv2, without the + ?