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=488407 --- Comment #4 from Ray Van Dolson <[email protected]> 2009-03-04 13:00:15 EDT --- I received the following from the author: > Hi Ray, > > I'm surprised anyone is actually using that code, it was just a quick > port. > > Since it was a port, I retained the same license as the original Perl > code out of fairness to the original authors. > > My understanding is that the Artistic license can be dual-licensed with > GPL without issues, so that is okay with me. > > Please feel free to add the same information to the package. > > Regards, > Swaroop My question is -- is this sufficient? Should I include this in a README file with the package to indicate the correct licensing? I don't know that upstream is interested in releasing a new version simply to address this. Let me know what you think. I'll read over the Fedora licensing guidelines as well to see if there's some instruction there. Thanks. -- 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 [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
