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=491581 --- Comment #4 from Mattias Ellert <[email protected]> 2009-04-30 19:10:35 EDT --- According to the licensing guidelines the License tag should reflect the license of the components of the binary RPM, not the sources. The binary RPM has only one component - the jarfile. So the license tag should reflect its license. If you only have the present situation and the author can not provide clarification the jarfile is a unit compiled from some sources licensed as BSD and some sources as LGPLv2+. The license of the resulting unit must be the most restrictive license, i.e. LGPLv2+. So the only component in the binary RPM is LGPLv2+, and no component is BSD - so the license tag should then be LGPLv2+. It really is weird that the license of the package is given by the license of 5 lines of code - but this is how I read the Licensing guidelines. -- 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
