Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474044 --- Comment #10 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> 2009-02-12 05:21:52 EDT --- Well, I don't understand Tom's comment about an old version of the EXCEPTIONS file. None of the tarballs in this review contained that old version of the file. That comment is only of limited historical value. Further, where do the EXCEPTIONS forbid linking with a modified libzdb? Section 1.a requires the licensee to ''obey the GPL in all respects for "the Program" (= libzdb)''. Originally, I only reviewed the EXCEPTIONS file to see whether it adds anything that doesn't leave us a choice, but it's only a multi-licensing model with multiple options to choose from. We can pick the GPLv3+ as the only license for the Fedora package. We cannot use the EXCEPTIONS, because IMO they violate the GPLv3. Confirmation for that would have been helpful. Hence keeping the EXCEPTIONS file would be misleading, since we would offer dual/multi-licensing like the tarball. Deleting the file would require patching the README (and any other files that mention the EXCEPTIONS file). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review