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 #38 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> 2011-06-03 11:38:30 EDT --- (In reply to comment #35) > Here I disagree, LGPLv3 licensed code can be used as if it was licensed under > the GPLv3, so no compatibility issues as far as I know, and if external > contributions are made to this code, relicensing from GPLv3 to LGPLv3 will be > annoying (ie need to contribute everyone to get their agreement). So I don't > really see a compelling reason to do the relicensing. Of course it's possible to keep the separate license but then you have to explain why an integral part of frogr not intended to be used externally needs its own license. If everything goes into an application licensed under GPLv3, why do you need LGPLv3 code in a separate directory? This just looks like a project bundled with the tarball. But that's only my humble opinion. Let's FPC have a look at this. Mario B. would you ask for a bundled library exception? (In reply to comment #36) > Ok, it's obvious then (as per your comment and Christophe's) that I > misunderstood you in the first comments: I though having a .a file was actually an issue No, sorry for the confusion. Linking object files directly or putting them in a static library and link the .a file doesn't make a big difference. The question is: Do we have a library that could be used outside the project (and is promoted a s such) or is it just a module exclusively related to the main project. -- 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