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=537325 --- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-09 05:26:41 EDT --- These are situations that make bad thoughts creep into my brain. :-/ The "effective license" once more? Huh? That's another term for "WTF? We don't care about proper licensing of a program". A term that cannot be found in Fedora's Licensing Guidelines. - I'm not a lawyer. Spot isn't one either. But it doesn't need a lawyer to come up with a case of a mixed-source program that is based on GPL'ed files and LGPL'ed files doing most of the work. The FSF wants program licenses to be applied in a clear, unambiguous way (which is also one reason why they distinguish between copying source code and linking with external libraries). And what do we do? We make up an "effective license" and pretend that the program is subject to the GPL only while actually parts of it apply the more liberal [less free!] LGPL. Uh, come on! Fedora's Licensing guidelines explicitly ask for "maintainers [to] make every possible effort to be accurate when filling the License: field". [...] I've sent a message to the lv2fil author, pointing out the mixed-source licensing and suggesting a clarification and conversion to GPLv2 or later. -- 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