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=526651 --- Comment #12 from Thomas Janssen <thomasj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-05 09:50:30 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > > Sounds not too good. I will have fedora-legal look over it. Sorry. > > Here it is stated that MIT license is compatible with both GPLv2 and GPLv3: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses > > This means that you can combine code released under the MIT license with code > released under the GNU GPL in one larger program: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean Yes, that's true. My point is "different parts with different licences, *including* MIT and GPL". Including MIT and GPL means there are others. As long as we dont know *what* licenses the others are, it's a no-go from my understanding. Upstream could be bothered to find out. On the plus side would be that it's included in Debian. But i have no idea what "debianized" means. He could ask the Debian developer to find out. Sorry. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- 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