https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297821 --- Comment #6 from Dave Olsthoorn <dave.olsthoorn@xxxxxxxxx> --- > libqlcpluswebaccess.so.1 contains GPLv2+ code, that means you have to > re-license libqlcpluswebaccess.so under GPLv2+. Your binary linked with > shared librarylibqlcpluswebaccess.so => the binary also have to be > re-licesned under GPLv2+. That is exactly how copyleft designed to work. I was more thinking of a whole separate lib only for mongoose, that would be something like libqlcplusmongoose.so, so libqlcpluswebaccess.so links to libqlcplusmongoose.so for the mongoose functionality. > It looks like an attempt to backport new features from the trunk. Original > qclplus 4.10.2b doesn't have these files (=features), right? Why not package > 4.10.2b as it was expected by the upstream? It is OK to backport critical > bugfixes for security vulnerabilities, crashes, memory leaks and so on. New > features should increment at least minor version of software. Please don't > mislead the users. It was originally not a backport, it is now because of my work to patch upstream, this is a feature that doesn't impact performance or the program itself in any way, it is only appstream metadata[1] which fedora suggests including for desktop applications[2]. You can see they originally came from me if you look at the copyright header. I wanted the upstream ones since the maintainer made a couple changes and it included a couple translations. [1]: http://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/sect-Metadata-Application.html [2]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData -- 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