On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 19:45 -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > Upstream binutils switched to GPLv3+ already more than a month ago. > While I guess I can delay switch to binutils-2.17.50.0.18 for a few > days, I can't do that forever. > > Under GPLv3+ will be licensed both the programs (I don't imagine > how that could be a problem) but also libfd and libopcodes. > Checking current rawhide, following packages BuildRequire > binutils-devel and therefore very likely link against libbfd > or libopcodes. Can the maintainers check if their licensing > isn't incompatible with GPLv3+ licensed libbfd.a resp. libopcodes.a? > > Thanks. > > alleyoop GPLv2+ (no problem, although, the spec License tag is WRONG!) > frysk GPLv2 with exception This is almost certainly a problem. Looks to be linking against libopcodes.a. (also, the spec License tag is WRONG!) > gcl GPL+ and LGPLv2+ (no problem, but again, the spec License tag is WRONG!) > kdesdk GPLv2+ with exception (i'm sounding like a broken record here, but no problem, except for the spec license tag being WRONG!) > lush GPLv2+ (once more, no problem, spec License tag is WRONG!) > oprofile GPLv2+ (no problem, spec License tag is WRONG!) > pfmon GPLv2+ (no problem, spec License tag is WRONG!) > sblim-wbemcli CPL. Well, if we were linking to this, it might be a problem (CPL is GPL incompatible), but its only using some very basic header information from binutils-devel, and no linking to it, so its fine. > sysprof GPLv2+ (no problem, spec License tag is WRONG!) *sigh* Only one of these packages had a valid License tag in the spec file. ~spot -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly