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=461077 Torsten Rausche <trausche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(trausche@fedorapr | |oject.org) | --- Comment #23 from Torsten Rausche <trausche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-25 11:16:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #21) > This depends on how this perl script is related to the rest part of nxtvepg. > If this perl script "uses" (i.e. depends on) the rest part of nxtvepg, then > the license conflict cannot be resolved only by moving it into a subpackage > and this script must be removed completely. Are you sure? After reading http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ I even think it would be enough to add GPLv3+ to the License tag: <cite> Q: How should I handle multiple licensing situations? A: It depends on the situation. Here are some common cases: # A package has multiple binaries, some of them are GPLv2, some are GPLv3, and some are MIT licensed. In this case, you do need to list all of the individual licenses of the compiled binaries in the License tag, so it should read: License: GPLv2 and GPLv3 and MIT </cite> If this is possible for binaries, it should also be possible for scripts, shouldn't it? -- 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