On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 10:25 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 08:22:50 -0800, > Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 12:55:55AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > > When double checking the LICENSE file shipped with 0.10.1 final I noticed > > > it was GPLv3 instead of GPLv2 as noted in the spec file. I am not sure > > > exactly when the change occured. > > > > > > > Because of that I always grep the source tree looking for a license version > > when the GPL is involved. In the pychess case, I found something that isn't > > incompatible but should be pointed out to upstream. > > The googlecode page claims the license is GPL v3 which matches the LICENSE > file. (I don't know if googlecode distinguishes between GPL v3 and GPL v3+ > though.) When you have discrepancies like this between what various files within a source tarball say and what the upstream home page says and what was announced on the morning news, the sensible next step is to mail upstream, alert them to the fact their licensing is in a state of disarray, and ask them to definitively clarify their intent and fix their source files and website and press releases and so on to match. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
