English Finnish
A comment right above the `+License:+` field:
# The entire source code is GPLv2+ except foolib/ which is BSD
License: GPLv2+ and BSD
Including a file as `+%license+` which contains the licensing breakdown for the packaged files, then using:
# For a breakdown of the licensing, see PACKAGE-LICENSING
Noting the license above the appropriate %files section:
%files
%doc Changes
# Python
%{_bindir}/cobra-util
%{_bindir}/viper-util
# LGPLv2+
%{_bindir}/gnu-util
%{_bindir}/rms-util
# BSD
%{_bindir}/berkeley-util
Combined Dual and Multiple Licensing Scenario
If you are unlucky enough that your package possesses items multiple, distinct, and independent licenses...AND some of those items are dual licensed, you must note the dual licensed items by wrapping them with parenthesis (). Otherwise, the guidelines for Dual and Multiple Licensing apply.
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:
License: Python and LGPLv2+ and BSD and (MPLv1.1 or GPLv2+)
Since this is a multiple licensing scenario, the package must contain a comment explaining the multiple licensing breakdown. The actual implementation of this is left to the maintainer.
Mixed Source Licensing Scenario
In some cases, it is possible for a binary to be generated from multiple source files with compatible, but differing licenses. Thus, the binary file would actually have simultaneous dual licensing (an AND, as opposed to an OR). For example, it is possible that a binary is generated from a source file licensed as BSD with advertising, and another source file licensed as QPL (which specifies that modifications must be shipped as patches). In this scenario, we'd wrap the list of licenses for that binary with parenthesis, example:
Package spot-utils contains some files under the Python License, but one of the files is generated from a BSD with advertising source file and a QPL source file.
License: Python and (BSD with advertising and QPL)
Public Domain
Works which are clearly marked as being in the Public Domain, and for which no evidence is known to contradict this statement, are treated in Fedora as being in the Public Domain, on the grounds that the intentions of the original creator are reflected by such a use, even if due to regional issues, it may not have been possible for the original creator to fully abandon all of their their copyrights on the work and place it fully into the Public Domain. If you believe that a work in Fedora which is marked as being in the Public Domain is actually available under a copyright license, please inform us of this fact with details, and we will immediately investigate the claim.