https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815624 --- Comment #15 from pcpa <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #14) > (In reply to comment #12) > > (In reply to comment #11) > > > [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > > > > > The "COPYING" file contains multiple licenses, are you sure a simple "MIT" > > > license is enough? > > > > The licenses are MIT or BSD-style without clauses. I also added > > GPLv2+ because of the int64 patch actually adapts code from libgcc. > > Why the GPLv2+ here? > This is in the patch: > +/* based on code based on libgcc (that is GPLv3) > + * version here doesn't return the result or MINSLONG if overflow > + */ > > wouldn't that make it to GPLv3?? > > Please elaborate a bit more on that. I did that as a quick patch to one feature that is only available when evaluating lisp expressions in the "*scratch*" buffer. But that is very unlikely someone would ever use :-) The license update in the spec only refers to the patch, but I can rework it to use some different approach or update the spec to say GPLv3 (I do not recall if I adapted it from libgcc sources before or after switch to GPLv3) > realpath.c is BSD-4clause == BSD with advertising, which is GPL INCOMPAT! > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses It was added to xedit source back in 1990's, but can be removed before starting the build, or replaced by a newer version, that should be GPL compatible. I did not add it back then, and it was added to build XFree86 on systems without a working realpath, strcasecmp, etc. I believe the 3 clause one, first google result, would do it http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/lib/libc/stdlib/realpath.c?rev=1.14;content-type=text%2Fplain > (In reply to comment #13) > > Please correct the license, "BSD-like" is not a valide License tag > > Which would be the right one, Simone? I am used to write BSD-like as license tag for Mandriva packages, but I did overlook the COPYING file with a proper license audit, and it does indeed list BSD 4 clause. > Also missing: > "Which file is under which license" comment in the spec file: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios > > Don't import this package till the licensing is completely clear! Ok. I do not have plans to do any work on xedit (other than packaging), and almost nothing was done in 2002-2012, but I still use it, unfortunately :-) But if everything were ok now I would not import/submit until the Xaw issue in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824198 is addressed. -- 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