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=573917 --- Comment #9 from Ruediger Landmann <r.landmann@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-22 18:20:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > Legally, it's questionable, because a Fedora packager added license file isn't > legally binding to upstream (only upstream can do this). Right -- which is why we need to seek upstream's consent to add the file (or, better, ask them to do it themselves for us). > > From the email, it sounds like it's unlikely that upstream will generate a new > > tarball for us, so instead could you please contact them again and: > > > > * attach a copy of the GPLv1 (not any other version) to the email > Are you sure? This GPLv1 is dead for more than a decade. I was initially surprised by this too; but Spot's rationale makes sense to me: "(yes, the GPLv1, not a later version, because the perl licensing they granted is GPLv1 or later. If upstream adds a copy of GPLv2 or GPLv3, that is sufficient for us to distribute to meet this technicality, but if we're going to do it, we're going to do it right.)"[0] [0] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-March/001584.html -- 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