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=484386 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo? | --- Comment #11 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-13 14:05:33 EDT --- Please note that there isn't any question of whether the license is acceptable. The question is whether it's restricted to "GPLv2 only" or whether it's "GPLv2 or later". This is important because it is not uncommon these days for packages to relicense to GPLv3+ (for example, this just happened with libreadline) and we need to know at a glance whether this is an issue for a particular program. We get the "Debian didn't care" argument pretty often, but the simple fact is that Fedora cares more about this kind of thing. We're just paying attention to details here. Since there's doubt, it seems safer to assume that the bulk of the software is "GPLv2 only" and cannot be linked against GPLv3 code, but if that's not what you intend then please do feel free to clarify. The GPL itself tells you how to be completely clear about this, by putting proper license blocks in each source file and using well-defined terminology when referring to the license. This information is down near the end of the GPL text, at "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs". -- 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