[Bug 1376845] The license tag should mention GPL+ or Artistic

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376845

Tom "spot" Callaway  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed|2016-09-19 07:43:06 |2018-08-09 10:29:38



--- Comment #4 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
Waited two weeks for you to make this change, but as you did not, I went ahead
and did it in rawhide.

Fixed in perl-Params-Validate-1.29-8.fc29.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/6WRZHPZY2ASZM7NU7G6U5ZSKY5TSTOBD/

[Bug 1376845] The license tag should mention GPL+ or Artistic

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376845

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ASSIGNED
 Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal)
 Resolution|NOTABUG |---
   Keywords||Reopened



--- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar  ---
I don't agree with your resolution.

c/ppport.h is "GPL+ or Artistic". Because Fedora does not permit Artistic, the
file is compiled as "GPL+". And if you link GPL+ code into an Artistic 2.0 code
(lib/Params/Validate/XS.c), the result is tainted by GPL. Thus the binary
package must state GPL+ in the license tag.

Raising to the Fedora legal team for a decision.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235
[Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/4SMKPTOKPQ3LQKI24ZXC3FKJQTXLRREH/

[Bug 1376845] The license tag should mention GPL+ or Artistic

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376845

Ralf Corsepius  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Last Closed||2016-09-19 07:43:06



--- Comment #1 from Ralf Corsepius  ---
(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #0)
> Thus I think the spec file should
> mention "GPL+ or Artistic" in the License tag. Now it declares "Artistic
> 2.0" only.

I do not agree. This perl-dist is clearly licensed Aritistic-2.0 as whole.
The fact contains a "GPL or Artistic" licenced file is irrelevant.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org