[Bug 1081726] Review Request: CutyCapt - A small command-line utility to capture WebKit's rendering of a web page

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081726

Jamie Nguyen <jamielinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|Review Request:             |Review Request: CutyCapt -
                   |qt5-CutyCapt - A small      |A small command-line
                   |command-line utility to     |utility to capture WebKit's
                   |capture WebKit's rendering  |rendering of a web page
                   |of a web page               |



--- Comment #5 from Jamie Nguyen <jamielinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
I noticed that I missed the reference to LGPL, so I've amended the License tag.
I believe I also incorrectly named this package with a "qt5-" prefix, which I
think is just for packages that are part of the base Qt5 software. I've renamed
to just CutyCapt.

Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/CutyCapt/CutyCapt.spec
SRPM URL:
http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/CutyCapt/SRPMS/CutyCapt-0-0.2.20130714svn.fc21.src.rpm

* Sat Mar 29 2014 Jamie Nguyen <jamielinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -
0-0.2.20130714svn
- rename to CutyCapt
- include copies of both GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1
- amend License tag


(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #4)
> I only have one question about the license - It is my understanding that
> license not provided by upstream cannot be included.
> 
> Please clarify.

See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
which states:
> In cases where the upstream has chosen a license that requires
> that a copy of the license text be distributed along with the
> binaries and/or source code, but does not provide a copy of the
> license text (in the source tree, or in some rare cases,
> anywhere), the packager should do their best to point out this
> confusion to upstream.
> 
> However, in situations where upstream is unresponsive, unable,
> or unwilling to provide proper full license text as part of the
> source code, and the indicated license requires that the full
> license text be included, Fedora Packagers must either:
> 
>  - Include a copy of what they believe the license text is
>    intended to be, as part of the Fedora package in %doc, in
>    order to remain in compliance.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
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]