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=502024 Antti Andreimann <antti.andreimann@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo? --- Comment #5 from Antti Andreimann <antti.andreimann@xxxxxxx> 2009-06-16 19:34:10 EDT --- I received the following reply from Boris Kolpackov ====================================================== Thanks for your effort in packaging XSD for Fedora, it is very much appreciated. Regarding the licensing issue, unfortunately relicensing the code under "GPLv2 or later" is not an option at the moment and making it "GPLv2 with exceptions" opens up a potential maintenance problem. Let me explain: the files that are under GPLv2 are from the base libraries that provide functionality that is not related to (nor is aware of) Xerces-C++. In other words, code from, say libcult, is used to parse command line arguments and just happens to be in the same executable (xsdcxx) as code that uses Xerces-C++. Since this GPLv2 code is not interacting in any way with the Xerces-C++ code under ASL 2.0, my understanding of the licenses suggests that there is no issue in having these two pieces of code in the same executable. The problem with making this code "GPLv2 with exceptions for ASL 2.0" is that tomorrow somebody else may start using libcult in their program that uses another, incompatible with GPL, library. They could then rightfully expect that we will add another exception to the licensing condition. I think you see how this can quickly get out of control. Let me know if the above reasoning (the fact that the GPLv2 and ASL code are completely independent) is acceptable to the reviewers. If not then we will have to figure out another way. ====================================================== Well, his logic seems to be that since the libcult does not use xerces functionality, the licencse incompatibility between the two is not an issue. I'm not much of an expert on such border line licensing issues, but the logic here does seem to be similar to making a distribution: you can put different parts of the system in the same bag and distribute them together (as long as such distribution is permitted) even if the individual licenses conflict with each other. The xsd compiler binary is present in debian which has very strict licensing policies, but I don't know if debian maintainers have investigated the libcult vs xerces licensing issue. -- 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