https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815624 pcpa <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Comment #16 from pcpa <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #14) > 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 wrote a new patch that checks overflow with some tests and then a division, instead of adapating libgcc one. > realpath.c is BSD-4clause == BSD with advertising, which is GPL INCOMPAT! > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses > > (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 updated the package to use BSD 3 clause files, imported from latest OpenBSD repository. > 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. The patches were submitted upstream. The Xaw patch was applied to upstream git head, so, once libXaw is rebuilt, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824198 I believe it should be ok. New package Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/xedit.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/xedit-1.2.0-2.fc18.src.rpm -- 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