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 Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #9 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-08-03 06:24:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > 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+. You can license your own files as GPLv3+. Then the binary will be formed out of GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ parts, so the License: tag would be either "GPLv2+ and GPLv3+" or just "GPLv3+" since that's the license of the binary that's produced. > I didn't change the headers of the third-party files, so some of them still > don't mention their GPL version. If they don't mention a version, they're GPL+. ** Drop gzip -9 ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_mandir}/*/* as RPM will do this for you automatically. ** I am willing to sponsor you if you show me your knowing of the Fedora guidelines, most importantly http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets This you can do by making at least one other submission and performing a couple of informal reviews of packages of other people. Please review only packages *not* marked with FE-NEEDSPONSOR, as I will have to do the full formal review after you to check that you have got everything correctly. Once I have sponsored you you will be able to do formal reviews of your own. -- 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