--- Comment #28 from Jeroen van Meeuwen <> ---
(In reply to Jared Smith from comment #26)
> (In reply to Tim Flink from comment #25)
> > > MIT/X11 (BSD like)
> > > ------------------
> > > libphutil-8f8e02d47569dce5f035383d8bcbf7a08481e839/externals/jsonlint/LICENSE
> > 
> > Why couldn't this be distributed as APL2? Ignoring the GPL3 issue with the
> > bison output, I mean.
> Because it's not licensed under the APL2 license.  It's licensed under an
> MIT-like license.  You're not the copyright holder, so you can't change the
> license on the software.

We should be able to remove the corresponding directory
/usr/share/libphutil/externals/jsonlint/ from the installed RPM, would the
license still be a concern per the contents of the source tarball?

(In reply to Tim Flink from comment #25)
> (In reply to Jared Smith from comment #24)
> > You're going to need to adjust the license tag on this package. 
> > Licensecheck found several licenses other than Apache in parts of the code
> > base:
> > 
> > GPL (v3 or later)
> > -----------------
> > libphutil-8f8e02d47569dce5f035383d8bcbf7a08481e839/support/xhpast/parser.
> > yacc.cpp
> > libphutil-8f8e02d47569dce5f035383d8bcbf7a08481e839/support/xhpast/parser.
> > yacc.hpp
> Bah, I thought those were covered under the special GPL exception for bison
> output but I missed the part about "as long as it isn't used as part of a
> parser generator'.

We don't really ship support/, and so effectively it isn't used (let alone as
part of a parser generator). This makes this result in the same question as
above -- source tarball license(s) or shipped content?

You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
package-review mailing list --
To unsubscribe send an email to

Reply via email to