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 #15 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-14 12:53:44 EDT --- I have no idea what you're talking about. To not answer my brief question doesn't help. [...] In comment 11, I've mentioned that _some_ of the source file headers in the build rpm explicitly give the licensing the name "MIT License", $ grep MIT * CachedFactory.h:// Code covered by the MIT License DataGenerators.h:// Code covered by the MIT License Factory.h:// Code covered by the MIT License Key.h:// Code covered by the MIT License SPCachedFactory.h:// Code covered by the MIT License StrongPtr.h:// The copyright on this file is protected under the terms of the MIT license. while other files apply a nameless license as in: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Old_Style Due to even different licenses applied to other files in the binary rpm, currently the following guideline applies: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios ==> License: GPLv2+ and MIT and Boost Compatibility with GPL is given by both MIT and Boost, but there is no automatic/implict conversion of the licensing of either The Program or individual files included in the binary rpms. Further, MIT#Old_Style does not explicitly permit sublicensing. And with that we're back at older comments in this ticket. -- 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