Re: [devel] [Legal] Лицензия у ClamAV

[Mikhail Efremov <sem@altlinux.org>]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 17:13:32 +0400 Sergey Afonin wrote:
> Приветствую.
> 
> legal@lists, похоже, так и не пользуется популярностью, потому сюда.
> Что-то заглянул вчера в дерево исходников ClamAV на предмет, какая
> там лицензия, и несколько удивился. Кроме GPL/LGPL (причём первая v2,
> вторая v2.1), там лежит целый выводок BSD-подобных, есть Apache и одна
> проприетарная (unrar):

/usr/share/doc/rpm-build-licenses-2.0.5/README:

Questions & Answers:
Q1: What if a package contains parts under different licenses?
A: Consider splitting the package into subpackages. If it is not
feasible for some reason, mention both licenses, separating them with a
comma, e.g.: %gpl2plus, %lgpl2plus

Q2: What if a package can be distributed under several licenses?
A: Mention the applicable licenses, separating them with a pipe sign or 'or'
word (NOT with a slash), e.g.:
%mpl|%gpl2plus|lgpl2plus (Firefox license)
%gpl2plus or %artistic_license (Perl license; better use %perl_license)

Q3: Why shouldn't I use a slash to separate licenses?
A: Because of an ambiguity. Consider "GPL/LGPL v.2" that usually means
"GPLv2+, LGPLv2+" (as in FAQ1) and "GPL/Artistic" (Perl license that means
"Either GPL or Artistic". The initial proposal was here:
http://lists.altlinux.org/pipermail/devel/2007-August/049382.html (in
Russian).

-- 
WBR, Mikhail Efremov