English Finnish
A comment right above the `+License:+` field:
All software in Fedora must be under licenses in the {fedora-licensing-list}. This list is based on the licenses approved by the https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses[Free Software Foundation], https://opensource.org/licenses/[OSI] and consultation with Red Hat Legal.
Choose not to package that software for Fedora.
Combined Dual and Multiple Licensing Scenario
"Distributable" "Levitettävissä"
Dual Licensing Scenarios
Every Fedora package must contain a `+License:+` entry. Maintainers should be aware that the contents of the `+License:+` field are understood to not be legally binding (only the source code itself is), but maintainers must make every possible effort to be accurate when filling the `+License:+` field.
Example: Package bar-utils contains some files under the Python License, some other files under the GNU Lesser General Public License v2 or later, and one file under the BSD License (no advertising). The package spec must have:
Example: Package baz-utils contains some files under the Python License, some other files under the GNU Lesser General Public License v2 or later, one file under the BSD License, no advertising, and one file which is dual licensed as Mozilla Public License v1.1 and GNU General Public License v2 or later. The package spec must have:
Example: Package libfoo is dual licensed as Mozilla Public License v1.1 and GNU General Public License v2 or later. The package spec must have:
Fedora Licensing
%files
%doc Changes
# Python
%{_bindir}/cobra-util
%{_bindir}/viper-util
# LGPLv2+
%{_bindir}/gnu-util
%{_bindir}/rms-util
# BSD
%{_bindir}/berkeley-util
Firmware Laiteohjelmisto
# For a breakdown of the licensing, see PACKAGE-LICENSING
GPL and LGPL
However, if a subpackage is independent of any base package (it does not require it, either implicitly or explicitly), it must include copies of any license texts (as present in the source) which are applicable to the files contained within the subpackage.
However, in situations where upstream is unresponsive, unable, or unwilling to provide proper full license text as part of the source code, and the indicated license requires that the full license text be included, Fedora Packagers must either:
If a source package generates multiple binary packages, the License: field may differ between them if necessary. This implies that a single spec may have multiple per-subpackage License: tags. Each of those License: tags must comply with all applicable guidelines.
If a subpackage is dependent (either implicitly or explicitly) upon a base package (where a base package is defined as a resulting binary package from the same source RPM which contains the appropriate license texts as %license), it is not necessary for that subpackage to also include those license texts as %license.
If code is multiple licensed, and at least one of the licenses is approved for Fedora, that code can be included in Fedora under the approved license(s) (but only under the terms of the approved license(s)).