Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libgeotiff https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178162 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-01-18 01:09 EST ------- Hmm, I vaguely recall the discussion on this package ;) Packaging-wise, the package seems fine to me, but I am having concerns on some details: 1. package's licensing: 1.1 The %description reads: "... public domain library ...". libgeotiff definitely is not a "public domain" library: Its sources come under different "open" licenses. (cf. the file LICENSE inside of the tarball). 1.2 LICENSE contains this: <citation> The EPSG Tables (from which the CSV files, and .inc files are derived) carried this statement on use of the data (from the EPSG web site): Use of the Data The user assumes the entire risk as to the accuracy and the use of this data. The data may be copied and distributed subject to the following conditions: ... 3.The data may not be distributed for profit by any third party; and 4.The original source [EPSG] must be acknowledged. </citation> IANAL, but this (esp. point 3.) seems problematic wrt. inclusion into FE to me. I read it as: This package contains sources which qualify as for "non-commercial use" only. The question, I can't answer is: Does this license affect the library binaries? 2. /usr/include/geotiff/geo_config.h contains defines which typically are used by autoconf/autoheader and are likely to conflict with autoheaders/autoconf when trying to use geotiff in packages using autoconf-based configuration. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
