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=785371 --- Comment #10 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-02-01 14:42:40 EST --- I'm afraid it's not that simple. But first, thanks for fixing the framework: URL:s, heading, release number etc. Seems we're up & running. But the licensing is trickier. If you look into the link above, there's compatibility matrix. From there, you can find out that the Mozilla license (MPL1.0) is incompatible with GPLv2. Practically, this means that a binary RPM can't be made from both MPL1.0 and GPLv2 sources (that they exist together in the srpm is no problem). So, be prepared that this is no minor issue. I guess you need to look into that link again to get the details... Now, what's your options? I'm by no means a specialist, and I have not looked into the code at all. Let's hope someone of the more experienced people corrects me if I'm wrong. My understanding: - You can't have a License: tag saying "GPLv2 and MPL1.0", they are incompatible. - In some cases one can just remove the offending code (that's what happened yesterday in another review). - In other cases it's possible to package it in a subpackage (which can have a license of it's own). - You could talk to the MPL code upstream to see if they can relicense with a dual license. BTW, the situation implies that you should talk to upstream, since this is a problem for anyone trying to package it. What's their opinion? Hope this helps... (one could also hope I'm wrong, that there's a simple solution) -- 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