https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962651 Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #7 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Praveen, I've fixed the other issues you pointed out, but the license situation is thornier than expected: - some files are GPLv2+ and GPLv3+, as you pointed out - all bamf-*.c files in src/ are GPLv3 *only* (without +) - some files in lib are GPLv2 or GPLv3 I *think* the v3-only code are out of the library, and everything in libbamf is either (LGPLv2+) or (LGPLv2 or LGPLv3), and either way, linking from GPL code to LGPL code should be fine anyway, but let me take a more thorough look at the files first - it's likely that the subpackages might end up with different license descriptions. An updated spec will suffice, I take it, as the requested changes only affects the packaging metadata? Thanks! -- 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=XVAcXIc8up&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review