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=476247 William Jon McCann <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?([email protected] | |m) | --- Comment #5 from William Jon McCann <[email protected]> 2008-12-12 21:35:56 EDT --- No, my understanding is that once the snprintf code (artistic license) is used in LGPL code the derived work is entirely LGPL. We do this all the time with such liberally licensed code. So the spec file header is correct. I also don't see a requirement in the license conditions to ship LICENSE.txt. Since the upstream code doesn't include it, I'm not sure it is a good idea to add it on our own. Especially since the entire work is LGPL. I'll fix the pkgconfig part. -- 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
