[Bug 617141] Review Request: gupnp-dlna - A collection of helpers for building DLNA applications

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=617141

--- Comment #10 from Matthias Runge <mrunge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-23 16:27:52 EDT ---
Peter, you're right regarding pkgconfig-files and the dependency. 

(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> 
> > === Issues ===
> > 1. IMHO License field should be GPLv2+ and not LGPL...
> 
> What makes you think so? From my quick observation it seems that LGPLv2+ seems
> to be correct. Did you spot something that says it is GPLv2+?
> 
As far as I can see, the COPYING files calls itself
  GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE  Version 2, June 1991
(taken from here:
http://gitorious.org/gupnp/gupnp-vala/blobs/master/COPYING

Looking at e.g. ../BUILD/gupnp-dlna-0.2.1/libgupnp-dlna/gupnp-dlna-discoverer.c
I can not find the word LESSER license, but GPL v2 or any later version.

> There seems to be a third issue: The tarball includes a copy of gst-convenience
> and seems to use it for building. But this is a separate project:
> http://git.collabora.co.uk/?p=user/edward/gst-convenience.git;a=tree
> 
> Therefore it violates the "no bundled libaries" guideline:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries

Till is right, I missed that. Can you separate it?

-- 
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


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]