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=727152 --- Comment #5 from Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-09-19 09:40:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > Of course that field shouldn't contain ASL 2.0, but LGPLv2+. I used a template > and this slipped by my attention. Does your comment apply even with that taken > into account? As far as I have read, LGPLv2+ is a valid license. Yes, based on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios because LGPLv2+ and ASL1.1 are "distinct, and independent licenses". (Admittedly this rule is probably not strictly complied with in many Fedora packages but I see some advantages to doing so for packages coming from JBoss.) I would argue that LGPLv2+ and ASL2.0 are not "distinct and independent" in this Fedora sense, based on license compatibility; thus were JBossAS to rebase the source files with ASL1.1 notices on more recent (post-2004?) ASL2.0 Apache versions of these files, which in at least some cases would probably require only minimal changes, you could reasonably simplify the Fedora license description to "LGPLv2+". But until that is done it should be "LGPLv2+ and ASL1.1". -- 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