[Bug 1354210] Review Request: xviewer - Fast and functional graphics viewer

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354210



--- Comment #14 from leigh scott <leigh123linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #9)
> Forgot, sorry:
> 
> Unknown or generated
> --------------------
> xviewer-1.0.4/jpegutils/jpegint-8a.h
> xviewer-1.0.4/jpegutils/transupp-8a.h
> 
> These two files have IJG license, see README.8a file.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/IJG
> 
> Although:
> 
> GPL (v2 or later)
> -----------------
> xviewer-1.0.4/jpegutils/jpegint.h
> xviewer-1.0.4/jpegutils/transupp-6b.c
> xviewer-1.0.4/jpegutils/transupp-6b.h
> xviewer-1.0.4/jpegutils/transupp-8a.c
> xviewer-1.0.4/jpegutils/transupp.h
> 
> make[2]: Entering directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/xviewer-1.0.4/jpegutils'
>   CC       transupp-6b.lo
>   CCLD     libxviewer-jpegutils.la
> make[2]: Leaving directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/xviewer-1.0.4/jpegutils'
> 
> I don't understand. Do we see a (forbidden) try to relicense jpegutils files
> from IJG to GPLv2+ and a case of bundling? How are those files relevant for
> the project because 'BR: pkgconfig(libjpeg)'?
> 
> AND:
> Did you report or ask about the unlicensed files as in comment #6 to
> upstream?

P.S I think your being OTT/OCD about it!

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]