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=616193 --- Comment #7 from Mads Kiilerich <mads@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-10 19:34:37 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > > Can you be more specific? Which library/binary, and where are the statements of > > BSD license? > > Sorry, it's actually MIT, to be precise > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Modern_Style_with_sublicense > * in asn1 everything is BSD > * in channels/cliprdr everything is MIT > * in channels/common everything it MIT except chan_stream.{c,h} (GPLv2+) > * in channels/rdpdr everything is GPLv2+, except rdpdr_main.c (MIT) > * in channels/rdpsnd we have rdpsnd.h/rdpsnd_dsp.h (MIT) and > rspsnd_alsa.c/rdpsnd_main.c (GPLv2+) > * in include/freerdp everything is MIT except kbd.h and rdpset.h (GPLv2+) > * in libfreerdp everything is GPLv2+ except frdp.h (MIT) > * libfreerdpchanman is MIT > * in libfreerdpkbd everything is GPLv2+ > * in X11 everything is MIT > > I think that xfreedrp is MIT, so if there is a separate package for xfreerdp, > it should have MIT as license tag. > The rest is a mess, but I think it will come down to GPLv2+. The plugins are > compiling against the things from common, right? Yes, so everything is either BSD or MIT or GPLv2+, but the xfreerdp and all libs contains or links against GPLv2+ headers and libraries, so effectively everything is GPLv2+, right? -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review