Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919265 --- Comment #4 from Mathieu Bridon <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #3) > Hello Matthieu, Only one "t". ;) > thanks much for the review (sorry there was all these little > things..). No worries, the purpose of the review is also to learn about these things. :) > Concerning the license : yes, some of the code comes from other > applications. I believe i should keep different copyright holders / authors > depending on where the initial code comes from. So it's not a wrong copy > paste, but I can add me if that's better. I see. You probably add yourself to every file you have modified anyway. > To simplify things > * for GPLv2+ i should just choose GPLv3+. Indeed, you can do that, which simplifies the resulting License tag. > * for the "LGPLv2+ / [LGPLv2 or LGPLv3]" distinction : > > => first idea, keep files and have package choose LGPLv2 > keeping libgd submodule as it is, LGPLv2+, seems important. Can't we choose > LGPLv2 for the package without touching the source files? libgd's license is LGPLv2+ The license of the files coming from Evolution is "LGPLv2 or LGPLv3". The result of these two parts is (if I'm not mistaken) "LGPLv2+ and (LGPLv2 or LGPLv3)". It is under **both** these licenses ("and"), not "either or". So the License tag for the total package would be: License: GPLv3+ and GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and (LGPLv2 or LGPLv3) If you decide to make the GPLv2+ files into GPLv3+ (as mentioned above), then the License tag for the package becomes: License: GPLv3+ and LGPLv2+ and (LGPLv2 or LGPLv3) I don't think you can get any simpler than that at the moment. In any case, libgd will go away at some point in the future, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. > => other idea, change files & have LGPLv2+ > For the files coming from evolution, I can ask the author to authorize > moving files in libbiji to LGPLv2+, or I can rewrite things myself using > LGPLv2+. Maybe. ----- All in all, the above is my interpretation, and I'd prefer having the legal folks confirm what is the appropriate License tag to use here. One thing I might not have made clear: even if I'm right in my first comment and the License tag ends as complicated as I suggested, I don't think that it is a legal issue, as all these licenses are (I believe) perfectly compatible with each other. My comment in the review was simply that the License tag you used (GPLv2+) is wrong, and it should be set to (I think) what I suggested above. Unless I'm completely wrong on this and the legal folks say that there is a fundamental problem with these licenses, that very complex License tag would be perfectly acceptable. All I reported was that your current License tag doesn't match what is actually in the package. :) -- 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=0HU3kh2nM3&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review