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=507052 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) <kwizart@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |182235(FE-Legal) --- Comment #4 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) <kwizart@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-07 05:28:46 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) >> License Field is GPLv2+ (which match source code header) but GPLv3 text file is >> redistributed. (need to check lastest version) >> >GPLv3. Its been clarified in the latest version. How ? from the source code header, none are tag as GPLv3 but GPLv2+, with the exeption of pvQt_QTVR.{cpp,h} which are licensed as LGPLv2+ The binary package will ends to be GPLv2+ then! But since the GPLv3 is available from the svn repository, this will be more accurate to use GPLv3+ in the license fied anyway. So OKay. ... > > Try to have the compiled binary / pixmaps installed with make install at > > %install step. > > I'm not sure on how to do this. The package generates a makefile using > qmake-qt4. I need to patch this generated makefile before make uses it?? You will need to patch the panini.pro file. > the srpm: > > http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/panini/Panini-0.71.102-1.fc12.src.rpm I don't understand why having %global fname panini, then fname is only used once?! But this remains trivial. Also, you could consider to clean the old comments while importing. FE-Legal: >From https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503252#c3 my understanding is that we aren't really creating panorama with this tool, but we are extracting perspective from already made panorama pictures. Hence, this doesn't fall under any patent anyone may beleive to have. But I would like a confirmation from FE-Legal about this... -- 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