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=489803 Alex Orlandi <nyrk71@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(nyrk71@xxxxxxxxx) | --- Comment #20 from Alex Orlandi <nyrk71@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-07-21 16:06:06 EDT --- Hi Tim, I would be glad to add this package but it seems the situation is a little bit stucked because of licensing issue. It is quite clear that the upstream's intention is to release the library under GPL2, as I inquired the project's owner and he answered: "Thanks for pointing out the licensing issue. The original intention was to use GPLv2. I will fix the headers in the file as soon as I return so they are consistent with GPLv2. However, please feel free to patch the files for Fedora as you find fit to make them appear as distributed under GPLv2." >From one side, as correctly pointed out from Kevin, we can't patch the file adding licensing header in the source, from the other side, it seems the upstream is not interested in releasing a new version (considering that in 2009 they said they would have released a new version within a couple of month but 2 years have passed). Reading the FAQ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_version_of_the_GPL.2FLGPL_my_package_is_under.3F it seems there could be a way out, i.e. to use the "strictest license" but it remains the doubt about the license of the source files that do not contain license info in the header. Any suggestions? -- 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