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=670302 --- Comment #5 from Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-01-19 00:11:11 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) > > Still no legal information in libbacklight.h (no copyright/license). > > I don't think there's anything substantively copyrightable in the file, but the > project copyright file included in %doc. Well, a file without explicit copyright is implicitly legally owned by its author. As only the author is legitimated to grant a license on a file, such files are legally unsafe to use by users. Whether a detached license file is sufficient for granting a license, is legally controversial. I.e. your works' users are only safe from being sued by you (rsp. this code's legal owner), when a piece of code contains copyright/license terms inside of its sources. It's the reasoning why e.g. the FSF insists on explict copyright/license terms being included in each of their source files. > > libbacklight.h includes <pciaccess.h> > > It's needed for struct pci_device, but the missing Requires was a bug. OK, then you'd have to reflect this dependency to libbacklight.pc, also (consider the case of libpciaccess having been installed to a non-standard directory). I am not 100% sure what to do. As you only #include <pciaccess.h> and don't link against libpciaccess, "Requires: pciaccess" would go too far, because it pulls in -lpciaccess. May-be "Requires.private: pciaccess" would be better - It would pull in -lpciaccess only for pkg-config --static), but wouldn't do so for dynamic linkage. -- 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