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 Alberto Garcia <agarcia@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |agarcia@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #65 from Alberto Garcia <agarcia@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-08-16 09:52:13 EDT --- (In reply to comment #38) > 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. My 2 cents: My understanding of all this "No Bundled Libraries" rule is that in general you want to avoid packaging a piece of software that includes an external library in its source tree, for all the reasons explained in the Fedora wiki page. That looks like a sensible rule to me, but it's certainly not what happens here. Apart from having two different licenses, none of the problems detailed in the aforementioned wiki page apply to Frogr/Flicksoup. Flicksoup is not an external library, it's not being released separately, there are no official tarballs and doesn't have a separate upstream repository. It's not bundled with Frogr: it's an internal part of it, much like mpglib was an internal part of mpg123 for a decade or so. I don't think that the fact that those files are released under a different license makes any difference in this case. -- 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