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 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(tcallawa@xxxxxxxx | |om) | --- Comment #17 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-12 09:24:34 EDT --- So, if CNRI gives permission for rubygem-passenger to use mod_scgi 1.10 under GPLv2, that would resolve the licensing issue. Note that I said 1.10. If they only relicense their latest version, that won't do the trick. If rubygem-passenger is relicensed to MIT, they're no longer incompatible with the mod_scgi 1.10 licensing, but they're _still_ in violation of the mod_scgi 1.10 licensing terms, which state: "3. In the event Licensee prepares a derivative work that is based on or incorporates scgi-1.9 or any part thereof, and wants to make the derivative work available to others as provided herein, then Licensee hereby agrees to include in any such work a brief summary of the changes made to scgi-1.9." They need to add a summary of the changes made to the mod_scgi code used, and then they'd be in the clear. -- 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