Licensing issues

[yarda]

It seems the CMake/common/ittnotify.h is licensed by GPLv2, not LGPLv2, thus probably the result cannot be LGPLv2, but only GPLv2 or 'GPLv2 and LGPLv2', or drop the problematic file.

The full license text should be included in the project, please add it to the repo, e.g.:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt

[eile]

The file says: This file is provided under a dual BSD/GPLv2 license -- and we pick BSD here, unless I'm missing something?

[yarda]

I am trying to get the package into Fedora, review ticket:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976793

The licensing question arose from the review. I added your comment there. For me it looks OK, sorry for noise.

[yarda]

Reopening with new question which arose from the review - it seems there are boost licensed files and lgplv3:

Looking at licensecheck.txt generated by fedora-review
and disregarding the build script,
it looks like the actual license is more like this:

(
  and Boost    # lunchbox/atomic.h, lunchbox/any.h
  and LGPLv2   # most files
  and LGPLv3   # some files, like any.cpp and lfVector.h
)

According to GPL Compatibility Matrix from Fedora Wiki [1]
LGPLv2 and LGPLv3 mix only by "converting to GPLv3".
I suppose the correct action would then be
to mark the license as "Boost and GPLv3",
note somewhere that the conversion option was used

I think the reviewer thought "Boost and LGPLv3".

[oturpe]

Fedora reviewed here.

Sorry, I somehow missed the dual licensing of ittnotify.h.
If the BSD option is used, GPL without the L does not sneak in from here.
However, if something from that file gets compiled into the results Lunchbox binary,
the BSD condition 2 brings a new requirement to fulfill:

• Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
  notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
  the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
  distribution.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.txt could be used to take care of that,
like is done for other similar cases already.

For the LGPLv2 and LGPLv2 -> GPLv3 conversion,
I really meant GPL without the L.
This is not my own idea,
it comes from the Fedora GPL Compatibility Matrix.
The reason is that that LGPLv2 Section 3
allows conversion to GPLv2-or-later
but nothing there allows conversion to LGPLv3.
You are supposed to enable that conversion yourself
by specifying the license as LGPLv2-or-later,
but Lunchbox is under LGPLv2-only.
I would say the best solution would be
to change the Lunchbox license to LGPLv2-or-later,
but that is obviously something for the copyright holder to decide.

[oturpe]

@eile Could you comment once more on this?
The Fedora package is otherwise ready,
just the licensing questions are preventing me from saying "review accepted".