https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #43 from jiri vanek <jva...@redhat.com> ---
> 
> I have not looked into any of the license issues, it would be great if other
> have time to help me.

I did.  Whole fx project should really be GPL2:
Thanx to Mario for pointing out
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/10/rt/file/48902e8e83a9/LICENSE

On other side, it claims to have same license as openjdk;
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/java-1.8.0-openjdk.git/tree/java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec#n811

That is a bit contradiction, so maybe I have bad license in jdk package.

Your statement of:
License:        GPL v2 with exceptions and BSD and LGPL v2+ and (LGPL v2+ or
BSD)
seems to be reflecting major of what review tool is saying. Hoowever I would go
with simple GPL-2 with Classpath exception (/me  a bit afraid of BSD in license
field)

The incorrect-fsf-address is actually patch for upstream, so we do not need to
bother with it rigt now.

I will try to find some lawyer around, but with "GPL-2 with Classpath
exception" I think we are ok to go.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to