On 08/04/2009 05:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 12:11 +0100, Tim Waugh wrote:
No, please look more closely. The above is a list of packages that
*use* or *require* ghostscript, not that link to it.
See my most recent contribution to this thread to see the correct list
based on requirements for libgs.so.8 and libijs-0.35.so.
Yes, I saw that after I'd sent my reply. I had assumed the original list
was correct, and worked on that basis.
An interesting side-question here is what license tag we should use for
an app whose license text states GPLv2+, but which we are linking
against a GPLv3+ library, effectively meaning that its license for our
purposes is GPLv3+...
Yes, indeed.
I should probably talk to Spot about that.
So, the rule here is that we don't take outside linking into effect when
marking the package's licensing. We go by what the source in the tarball
tells us. Otherwise, it would become massively too complicated to figure
it out for a lot of packages.
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
