English Finnish
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.
Valid License Short Names
The `+License:+` field must be filled with the appropriate license Short License identifier(s) from the "Good License" tables on the {fedora-licensing} page. If your license does not appear in the tables, it needs to be sent to legal@lists.fedoraproject.org (note that this list is moderated, only members may directly post). If the license is approved, it will be added to the appropriate table.
In the past, Fedora (and Red Hat Linux) packages have used "Distributable" in the `+License:+` field. In virtually all of these cases, this was not correct. Fedora no longer permits packages to use "Distributable" as a valid License. If your package contains content which is freely redistributable without restrictions, but does not contain any license other than explicit permission from the content owner/creator, then that package can use "Freely redistributable without restriction" as its `+License:+` identifier.
The `+License:+` field for any firmware that disallows modification should be set to: "Redistributable, no modification permitted".
Versioned licenses
Some licenses include the version as part of the Short License Identifier. This is only done when multiple versions of the license differ in significant ways (e.g. one revision is GPLv2 incompatible, while a later version is not). Be careful to ensure that you use the correct Short License Identifier, as shown in the tables on the {fedora-licensing} page.
"or later version" licenses
Some licenses state that either the current version of the license or later versions may be used. It is important to note when a license states this. When a license has an "or later version" clause, we note that by appending a + to the Short License Identifier. Please note that there are already special Short License Identifiers for GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+, there is no need to append an additional + for those cases.
GPL and LGPL
Since compatibility of code and library linking is especially complex with GPL and LGPL, Fedora packages can no longer simply use "GPL" or "LGPL" in the `+License:+` field. Please refer to the {fedora-licensing} page for the acceptable identifiers, and be careful to ensure that you select the correct one.
Dual Licensing Scenarios
If your package is dual licensed (or triple licensed, etc.), the spec must reflect this by using "or" as a separator. Note that this only applies when the contents of the package are actually under a dual license, and not when the package contains items under multiple, distinct, and independent licenses.
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:
License: MPLv1.1 or GPLv2+
Multiple Licensing Scenarios
If your package contains files which are under multiple, distinct, and independent licenses, then the spec must reflect this by using "and" as a separator. Fedora maintainers are highly encouraged to avoid this scenario whenever reasonably possible, by dividing files into subpackages (subpackages can each have their own `+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:
License: Python and LGPLv2+ and BSD
In addition, the package must contain a comment explaining the multiple licensing breakdown. The actual implementation of this is left to the maintainer. Some suggested implementations include