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=486804 --- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-14 08:11:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) > Once again, haven't had another look at the pkg since previously mentioned > issues are still present and Mamoru has added a review. > > Just about the licensing: > > > * Licensing > > - The license tag should simply be "GPLv2+". > > src/Extensions.cpp is under GPLv2+, libferrisloki.so uses > > .libs/Extensions.o, which renders libferrisloki.so to be under GPLv2+, > > so other license tag is useless. > > * Relicensing of source files to GPLv2+ is neither automatic nor implicit. It > would be best to make the GPLv2+ licensing explicit in all source files where > license conversion is possible. - We always can it and there is no problem. > Even the copied LGPLv2+ m4 macros could be > converted to GPLv2+ by following the instructions in the LGPL appendix. > However: > > * The BoostExtensions.hh file, which applies its own license, is included in > the built rpms. Hence: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios > > * About the several C++ source files with very short licensing terms or just > copyright messages (e.g. LockingPtr.h), please don't take these issues lightly. > See what is included in the built rpms. Some of the files (albeit from Loki > lib) explicitly refer to "MIT" licensing. Several other files, used in > ferrisloki (e.g. SmallObj.cpp) apply terms that look like > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Old_Style > > instead, i.e. more than a "Copyright Only" header even if it doesn't mention > "MIT" anywhere. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios Quoted: If your package contains files which are under multiple, distinct, and *independent* licenses, then the spec must reflect this by using "and" as a separator. The relation between MIT and GPL is not independent. > Simply ignoring such licensing issues in the Fedora package "License:" tag > would be wrong. In particular, what I don't feel good about is this: > > | provided that [...] both that copyright notice and this > | permission notice appear in supporting documentation. > > The 2nd example on the linked "Copyright Only" Fedora Licensing page wants > copyright notices "to remain" in documentation. Vague enough already. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Old_Style_with_legal_disclaimer Quoted: and that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, -- 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