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=474044 --- Comment #5 from Bernard Johnson <bjohnson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-05 02:02:57 EDT --- Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~bjohnson/libzdb.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~bjohnson/libzdb-2.2.3-2.fc10.src.rpm Thanks Michael, you comments were very valuable. $ objdump -x usr/lib/libzdb.so.4.1.2 | grep SO SONAME libzdb.so.4 $ rpm -qpl libzdb-2.2.3-2.fc10.i386.rpm | grep libzdb.so /usr/lib/libzdb.so.4 /usr/lib/libzdb.so.4.1.2 $ rpm -qpl libzdb-devel-2.2.3-2.fc10.i386.rpm | grep include /usr/include/libzdb /usr/include/libzdb/Connection.h /usr/include/libzdb/ConnectionPool.h /usr/include/libzdb/Exception.h /usr/include/libzdb/PreparedStatement.h /usr/include/libzdb/ResultSet.h /usr/include/libzdb/SQLException.h /usr/include/libzdb/URL.h $ grep Summary: libzdb.spec | head -1 Summary: Small, fast, and easy to use database API $ grep disable libzdb.spec | head -1 %configure --disable-static --enable-protected The package is licensed under GPLv3+ OR GPLv3 + exceptions. Since the exceptions have not been evaluated for being Fedora compatible, wouldn't we just take the OR clause and distribute it under the GPLv3? Also, if you read: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ, 3rd question, it says "look at the source" and the source is licensed GPLv3+. It also says "COPYING [or in this case EXCEPTIONS] does not signal licensing intent (it might not seem intuitive, but this is what Red Hat legal told us, and we're going by that)." And, then there is also this under "Multiple licensing situations": The source code in my package is dual licensed, but one of the licenses is a proprietary license (the other is GPLv2+). You do not need to list the proprietary license in the License tag, so it should read: License: GPLv2+ -- 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