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=708765 --- Comment #28 from Mario Sanchez Prada <msanchez@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-06-02 06:05:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #27) > I would keep src/flicksoup files as LGPLv3 if your long term plan/hope is to > ship it as a separate library. If you get external patches to src/flicksoup, > you don't want to be stuck with GPLv3 licensing the day you want to make it an > external library. Yeah, I for sure would prefer not to touch the license, just putting options over the table, not consider to go ahead with any of them yet. > Apart from that, your plan makes sense to me. Another option might be to > install flicksoup as a .so as part of flickr "make install", and to also > install .h files. This way, the library can be put in separate lib/-devel > subpackages. However, this is not a really good solution, since I'm under the > impression that if someone tries to use it, things will break every time frogr > gets upgraded. Already though of that (actually at the beginning frogr used flicksoup in that way), but if I'm shipping an application and not a library I think it's better to build flicksoup files inside of it as a static object, as it's being done now. > I don't know if this is OK wrt fedora guidelines, but at least your plan > makes sense to me. Glad to hear that. Hopefully only (A) will be needed (I do not like much (B) and (C)) :-) -- 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