Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888301 --- Comment #15 from Sebastien Jodogne <s.jodogne@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi again, > * There are at least two licenses: MIT (OrthancCppClient) and GPLv3. This > should be reflected in the SPEC file as in: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ > LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios I am not comfortable enough with legal stuff, but as I understand on the following page, I should just specify "GPLv3" because it corresponds to the license of the Orthanc binaries that are shipped inside the package: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#How_should_I_handle_multiple_licensing_situations.3F "Here are some common cases: [...] The source code contains some .c files which are GPLv2+ and some other .c files which are BSD. They're compiled together to form an executable. Since some of the files are licensed as GPL, the resulting executable is also GPL. The License tag should read: License: GPLv2+" Let me know if I'm wrong, but I think that the different licensing schemes for the OrthancCppClient and the Core/SQLite folders are upstream-related stuff, and do not interfere with the Fedora package. > * Core/SQlite contains an sqlite wrapper from chrome. Is it under BSD > license. I see there are some modifications specifically made for Orthanc, > which could qualify as a fork. Sebastian, in order to understand if this is > the case, would you mind to comment (briefly) on these questions > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > No_Bundled_Libraries#Standard_questions)? I think that this work should not be considered as a fork of Chrome, since it is just an excerpt of a few files that happen to compile well outside the Chrome framework: Chrome does not provide a standalone SQLite wrapper by itself, and thus this folder is not a fork. > * I see a lot of cmake files that deal with 3rd part libraries. If you don't > use them, why don't you "rm -rf" them in the %prep section? Just to be sure > we are not using them? Well, the CMake framework of Orthanc is rather complex, as Orthanc is built so as to compile as well on Windows and on several flavors of Linux: This notably implies that it is possible to statically link Orthanc against all the third-party dependencies. Even if only 5% of the Resources/CMake folder is used for dynamic linking in Linux, the upstream package is maintained for more general linking scenarios. I have the feeling that it would not be a good thing to modify the CMake scripts just for the Fedora package, because the same work would have to be done again and again with each release of Orthanc, which would be error-prone and time-consuming. Cheers, Sébastien- -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7bYGo3JRCa&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review