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 --- Comment #18 from Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-12 09:39:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17) > 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. > I've asked for re-licensing of mod_scgi-1.09 and later versions (including mod_scgi-1.10) > 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. Phusion Passenger's upstream told me they would list the changes anyway. -- 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