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=523877 --- Comment #2 from Tim Fenn <fenn@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-24 19:07:33 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > > The licensing situation is a bit complicated. Indeed, everything is GPLv2+, > but some of it is also LGPLv2+. That would give a license tag of "GPLv2+ and > (GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+)" but you also need to indicate which parts of the code are > under which license. The documentation says that you can distribute the cbflib > API under the LGPL, but honestly I'm not sure what they consider to be the API. > There's also some truly public domain code in there, though I doubt the > compiled result preserves any of it uncombined with GPL code. > I've notified upstream and received clarification (anything in the src/ folder is LGPLv2+, everything else is GPLv2+), and asked later versions of the package to differentiate this a bit better. > There's also a potentially troubling notice in some code: > I've also brought this up with upstream, hopefully they can provide information as needed for the fedora legal folks if necessary. -- 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