On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 01:14 +0200, Bernie Innocenti wrote: > On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 12:27 +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > > devtodo-0.1.20-3.fc12 > > I maintain this package in Fedora. Just wrote the author asking for a > clarification on licensing. FYI, I got this reply: -------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Alec Thomas <alec@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: Bernie Innocenti <bernie@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: License clarification for devtodo Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 12:02:04 +1000 I haven't looked at the GPLv3 to determine whether I'd actually want to license devtodo under it, but I'll take a look when I get a chance. Unfortunately I'm going on holidays for a month, so likely won't be able to until mid-August or so. 2009/7/9 Bernie Innocenti <bernie@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > Hello, > > I'm packaging devtodo in Fedora. We can't link it against readline 6 > because it is GPLv3 and devtodo appears to be GPLv2 only. > > Is that right? If your intention actually was to make devtodo GPLv2 or > later, could you please release an updated source package with this fact > explained explicitly? > > -- > // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ > \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
