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=730306 Alexander Kurtakov <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #12 from Alexander Kurtakov <[email protected]> 2012-03-12 08:21:27 EDT --- Hmm, as Vladimir's sponsor I have to say that he is correct despite the legal team opinion. It is not obvious what the license is. And having the ASL 2.0 license shipped with the source should make the License tag at least "CDDL or GPLv2 with exceptions or ASL 2.0" otherwise clear headers should be added to the source files or ASL license file removed from the source tarball so one can exclude the possibility of having ASL 2.0 content in the package. From merely looking at the source tarball I would say that it is as legal to ship it under ASL 2.0 as it is to ship it underl GPLv2 with exceptions. -- 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
