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=470173 --- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-10 09:04:18 EDT --- My understa(In reply to comment #7) > Is an email from them much better than the front page of their website > proclaiming GPLv2+? Yes, unless you have some sort of copyright statement on the web site indicating that its authorship is the same as the software. I won't pretend to speak for the lawyers, but as I understand things the idea is to discern the intent of the copyright holders of the software. An email, while obviously not falsifiable by any stretch of the imagination, has been deemed sufficient for this purpose. Of course, that email must be included with the software as documentation. > Sorry, I don't have any software around using this library. Well, then your options are: * Find some way to test it by linking some code against it and seeing what happens. * Talk to someone who knows enough about the linker to answer the question. * Wait for upstream to change things. * Simply refuse to do one of the above and I'll return this ticket to the queue; perhaps someone will approve it over my objections. Let me know if this is what you prefer. -- 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