Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459153 --- Comment #4 from Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> 2008-08-17 04:40:58 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > You should be right with the license - the sources specify "Lesser GNU Public > > License" without version and there is no "or any later version" clause. So > > LGPLv2+ should be right. > ?!? > > Copying.txt explicitly says: > "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it > under the terms of the GNU Lesser Public License as published by the > Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your > option) any later version." > > => This is the "later version" clause. > > License.txt says: > "GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE > > Version 2.1, February 1999..." > > => This is a copy of LGPLv2.1. > > > => This package is LGPLv2+'ed OK, thanks for explanation. I am really not a licensing expert, so I thought that license text in the source files (*.cpp, *h)) is prioritized against the included *.txt files and it leads into LGPLv2+ too. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review