[Bug 825854] Review Request: zita-alsa-pcmi - alsa pcm libraries

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854

--- Comment #25 from Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to comment #24)
> 
> Doesn't that mean that it's possible to release it under GPLv3 at our option?

Yes, there is no licensing conflict as GPLv2+ software is a superclass of
GPLv3+ software by definition. In the case that a software package contains
code from multiple (and compatible) licenses, these licenses need to be listed
in the License tag. Please see [1] for the relevnt guideline and an example,
and [2] for a real-life example. Note that the examples give detailed
explanation about the licenses of individual source files.

> 
> There is no bugtracker or mailinglist for upstream as far as i know. I have
> contacted upstream about the patches and documentation.
> 

Thanks, please indicate this in the specfile as a comment. See [3] for the
relevant guideline.


[1]
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios

[2]
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=dpkg.git;a=blob;f=dpkg.spec;h=70e29fc42ad

[3]
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment

-- 
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



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]