Re: [sigrok-devel] libsigrokdecode license clarification

[Alex G. <mr....@gm...>]

On 03/19/2013 06:15 PM, Uwe Hermann wrote:
>> The confusion stems from the fact that some
>> installed files (protocol decoders) are GPLv2+. Since those protocol
>> decoders are standalone files (not part of a binary), it's unclear
>> whether we can simply distribute the binary package (rpm) under GPLv3+.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand the issue wrt the RPM here. I don't think
> every RPM can only ever contain tools/libs/whatever of just one license,
> right? Surely it's not too uncommon for a Fedora package to include
> tools/libs/files with many different licenses.
> 
I misspoke originally. I meant to say "under GPLv3+ _only_". Fedora is
very strict about licensing, and the question was whether we should put
"GPLv3+" or "GPLv3+ and GPLv2+" in the license field (using "GPLv3+"
could be interpreted as an implicit upgrade to GPLv3, which might be
contrary to upstream's intention). The clarification in the README
explains this very elegantly.

> The shared library libsigrokdecode (libsigrokdecode.so) is overall licensed
> under the GPL, version 3 or later. The PDs (*.py files) are an integral
> part of the shared library (see below) and are thus also GPLv3+.
> 
> Some individual source code files belonging to the lib (some *.c and
> some *.py) might be licensed GPLv2+, but that doesn't change the GPLv3+
> license of the library as a whole.
> 
Thanks for clarifying!

>> Please respond to this email with a license clarification [2]. The
>> response will be included in the binary package along with the text of
>> the license.
> 
> No need to include this email; I've written up a small section in the
> libsigrokdecode README which explains this in a little more detail. Feel
> free to refer to that.
> 
The update to the README is great! I've cherry-picked it for this release.

Alex