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=515049 --- Comment #8 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> 2009-08-02 02:59:22 EDT --- Spec URL: http://dvisvgm.sourceforge.net/fedora/dvisvgm.spec SRPM URL: http://dvisvgm.sourceforge.net/fedora/dvisvgm-0.8.1-1.fc11.src.rpm Thanks for all your comments and support. I've updated the spec file and added the GPL v2 LICENSE file to the tarball. However, I'm not quite sure about the license constraints because the sources contain some unmodified, third-party files that are licensed under GPL v2+. Even if I'd like to publish my own code under GPL v3, do the bundled files affect the license of the complete package, e.g. force it to be GPL v2+ too (which wouldn't be a problem for me)? For now, I stay with GPL v2+. I didn't change the headers of the third-party files, so some of them still don't mention their GPL version. -- 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