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=470696 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx Blocks| |182235 --- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-09 10:40:14 EDT --- Umm... spot, would you answer my question below? ! First of all please unpack passenger-2.0.3.gem in the srpm by below: $ mkdir TMP ; cd TMP $ tar xf ../*gem (gem can be unpacked by tar) $ mkdir TMP ; cd TMP $ tar xzf ../data.tar.gz Then: First of all, the overall license this package is GPLv2 (not GPLv2+) Then ext/apache2/LICENSE-CNRI.TXT says: ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// A few functions in ext/apache2/Hooks.cpp are based on the source code of mod_scgi version 1.9. Its license is included in this file. Please note that these licensing terms *only* encompass those few functions, and not Passenger as a whole. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CNRI OPEN SOURCE LICENSE AGREEMENT (CNRI = Python 1.6 i.e. GPL incompatible license follows) ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// What I am in trouble is that - What functions in ext/apache2/Hooks.cpp are actually based on mod_scgi codes - And I don't know for now how these functions are used in the other parts of passenger source codes - So I am not sure if the code in Hooks.cpp under CNRI license won't conflict with GPL. spot, how do you think about this. For me the current status seems very obscure. -- 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