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=537979 --- Comment #10 from Jens Petersen <[email protected]> 2010-01-21 04:29:24 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) > (Correctly he hasn't updated the original header file yet IIUC, but anyway.) > So in that sense we could actually ignore GPL. (In reply to comment #9) > I think that makes it GPL AND BSD (whereas dual-licensed would be GPL OR BSD). You're right about dual-licenseing being "OR", but AFAIK "AND" means part of the binary package is one license and another part another (cf cpphs). In this case it is a single library linked together and hence GPL trumphs BSD. However going on the above comment from the author I think we could just forget about the "GPL code" - I could add a comment to that effect in the spec file. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
