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=727152 --- Comment #6 from Tomas Radej <[email protected]> 2011-09-19 09:57:30 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > Of course that field shouldn't contain ASL 2.0, but LGPLv2+. I used a > > template > > and this slipped by my attention. Does your comment apply even with that > > taken > > into account? As far as I have read, LGPLv2+ is a valid license. > > Yes, based on > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios > because LGPLv2+ and ASL1.1 are "distinct, and independent licenses". > (Admittedly this rule is probably not strictly complied with in many Fedora > packages but I see some advantages to doing so for packages coming from > JBoss.) > > I would argue that LGPLv2+ and ASL2.0 are not "distinct and independent" in > this Fedora sense, based on license compatibility; thus were JBossAS to rebase > the source files with ASL1.1 notices on more recent (post-2004?) ASL2.0 > Apache > versions of these files, which in at least some cases would probably require > only minimal changes, you could reasonably simplify the Fedora license > description to "LGPLv2+". But until that is done it should be "LGPLv2+ and > ASL1.1". I am not sure if I made myself clear. I put the ASL license there by mistake. It should have never been there as the package is licensed solely under LGPLv2+. Was this the reason for the block? -- 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
