Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mt-daapd - An iTunes-compatible media server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=248277 ------- Additional Comments From jeff@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-12-19 13:40 EST ------- (In reply to comment #16) > In reference to comment #14, I received a reply from the author and he > recommended using the avahi code as well. I have three questions: > > 1. Is it legally okay to ship an SRPM with license issues (a la > GPLv2 + Apache) if the corresponding code is disabled at compile > time? I don't have a reference handy, but I think that the answer is no. > 2. If the answer to 1 is no, then is it okay to ship an SRPM with > license issues if the correspoinding code is removed with a patch by > the build process? > > 3. If the answer to 1 and 2 is no, then would we need to fork > mt-daapd to get it into Fedora? The Asterisk package faced similar issues (iLBC codecs). Instead of shipping the upstream tarball I made a script that removes the offending source from the upstream tarball and creates a new tarball. I then packaged the new tarball. You need to package the script as well. So, I guess it's technically a fork but it's not like we're making major changes to the code. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review