Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
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.
frysk
GPLv2 with exception
This is almost certainly a problem. Looks to be linking against
libopcodes.a.
Has anyone tried contacting upstream? I've contacted upstream for all my GPLv2
(only) packages and sofar all who have replied have promised me that the next
version will be either GPLv2+ or "GPLv2 and GPLv3" (luckily they were all
pretty much one man projects, so upstream has the power to do this). One
upstream has even done a new release with just the copyrightheaders changed
esp. for this. Sometimes it takes some explaining why GPLv2 only is going to be
a problem once glibc hits LGPLv3, but usually upstreams are very willing to
help in my experience.
The only problematic packages I currently have are goffice and gnumeric (gnome
really should have kept a better watch there GRRR).
Regards,
Hans
--
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
