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 #17 from Bernard Johnson <bjohnson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-25 17:50:24 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16) > If we did include it, though, we would offer the same dual-/multi-licensing > options as the upstream tarball (and our "License: GPLv3+" tag may not be > explicit enough to signal our intent). And with that, somebody could choose to > accept the dual-licensing and would be bound to term 1.b.ii, which I think is a > problem, as for example, we don't do that for Fedora. Can I modify the EXCEPTIONS file to include this text at the top?: ============================================================================ NOTE: This file is included for reference reasons only. The Fedora project only offers this software under the GPLv3+ and MIT licenses. All files are GPLv3+ licenses, except the following files which are MIT licensed: src/exceptions/assert.c src/exceptions/AssertException.h If you wish to exercise the dual license, please obtain the sources from: http://www.tildeslash.com/libzdb/ ============================================================================= Seems like that would make it un-mistakable in conjunction with the package license tag. If I am not allowed to modify that file, then a README.Fedora is probably the best we can do. -- 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