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=727155 --- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-10-19 09:40:58 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > * Licensing: The mentioned files in lib/vendor directory are not Ruby or > GPLv2+, but Ruby or LGPLv2+ -- see > https://github.com/mutoh/gettext/blob/master/README.rdoc (the library, where > the files are from). The file you are referring says: "This program is licenced under the same licence as Ruby", i.e. GPLv2 or Ruby => I am going to remove the "+", with the exception of 'setup.rb' file which is not present in the folder. So it is not LGPLv2+ IMO. > * It would be good to query upstream not to bundle the gettext library, but use > it as a separate dependency. I have checked the files once more. Although the files are coming from gettext library, it seems that they are more or less modified. Moreover, the original gettext package seems to be death, so it makes no sense IMO. > * I would consider moving readme.md into the main package, as it contains > information about licensing, which I think should be present in the main > package. DONE. > Otherwise, the package seems to be ok, but I would like to get the three points > above clear. Please note that I have also updated the package to the latest upstream version. Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-fast_gettext.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-fast_gettext-0.6.1-1.fcf17.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3443784 -- 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