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=468003 --- Comment #18 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-11 13:13:20 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17) > The sources explicitly say "for license terms please see the file COPYING". > And even if you disregard that (to me clear) statement, the FAQ you cite > mentions this (point 4.): > > "Technically it could be under any license, but if all we have to go by is > COPYING, we'll guess COPYING is accurate." In this case we don't do any _guess_ (if possible) but check the license in the technical point of view. > Finally, as I'm the maintainer, and my employer the copyright holder, it is not > a matter of discussion what license QMTest is released under, but rather, where > to put the licensing terms to make our users aware of them. > > FWIW, the qmtest.com website (http://www.codesourcery.com/qmtest) clearly > states that QMTest is available under GPL version 2. Is that what you are > asking for ? I no longer trust website license information because I have seen many cases in which the website license information is wrong due to various reasons. By the way, if you are upstream all I want is that you put the explicit declaration in the COPYING or README that this software is licensed under GPL version 2. -- 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