Some package i was trying to give a review has a much newer upstream version available, however it requires the "boost filesystem" libraries to function (c++ libs) The licence used for these libraries is the "Boost Software Licence", described here: http://www.boost.org/more/license_info.html The full licence is here: http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt Relevant information seems to be: How is the Boost license different from the GNU General Public License (GPL)? The Boost license permits the creation of derivative works for commercial or non-commercial use with no legal requirement to release your source code. Other differences include Boost not requiring reproduction of copyright messages for object code redistribution, and the fact that the Boost license is not "viral": if you distribute your own code along with some Boost code, the Boost license applies only to the Boost code (and modified versions thereof); you are free to license your own code under any terms you like. The GPL is also much longer, and thus may be harder to understand. Is it safe and ok to package this for Fedora? Seems to be a much more free licence, and allows distribution of the source/compiled package, so should be ok right? -- Chris Chabot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
