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 #7 from Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-09-19 12:38:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > I am not sure if I made myself clear. I put the ASL license there by mistake. > It should have never been there as the package is licensed solely under > LGPLv2+. Was this the reason for the block? No. (I didn't think I was blocking this one BTW, it is more something that should ideally be corrected when feasible.) The reason for the comment is that a subset of the source files in this package are (in some cases modified versions of) code taken from certain old versions of ASF projects where they were licensed under ASL 1.1, a license since superseded by the ASF. We treat ASL 1.1 as GPL-incompatible and (for purposes here) LGPL-incompatible, which means that the two licenses are "distinct and independent". So, again bearing in mind Fedora's own packaging guidelines, it is more accurate to see the licensing of this package as a conjunction of "LGPLv2+ and ASL1.1" than just LGPL. That is, it's really not "licensed solely under LGPLv2+" unless you decide ASL 1.1 is GPL-compatible. Since currently Fedora classifies ASL 1.1 as GPL-incompatible, it follows logically that the package cannot be licensed solely under LGPLv2+. I realize from the upstream *JBoss* perspective it may be conceived as being licensed solely under LGPL, but the Fedora view is (I would argue) more precise. -- 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