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 sergio.pasra@xxxxxxxxx 2007-12-19 14:07 EST ------- (In reply to comment #18) > (In reply to comment #17) > > (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. > > Actually after thinking about this some more, I think that the answer > may be yes. Since the Apple license is free enough to qualify for > Fedora, we can ship the code. What's prohibited is combining the > Apple licensed code with GPL licensed code. Since we can do that by > choosing our configure options properly I think that we're ok. The > Asterisk situation was different in that some of the code in Asterisk > had a license that prohibited Fedora from shipping it. > > It'd still be good to ping Tom Callaway about this since he deals with > this stuff more often. It'd be even better for upstream to get the > licensing figured out properly. > Probably the best is to ask in fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx There are some guidelines about packaging software with offending licenses here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SourceUrl -- 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