19.01.2012 17:03, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Pavel Alexeev wrote:
But how I should then deal with licensing in my situation if its mismatch?
There is no mismatch, it's OK to include GPLv2+ code in a GPLv3+ program,
the result is just GPLv3+. (You can also declare License: GPLv3+ and
GPLv2+, but if
Pavel Alexeev wrote:
But how I should then deal with licensing in my situation if its mismatch?
There is no mismatch, it's OK to include GPLv2+ code in a GPLv3+ program,
the result is just GPLv3+. (You can also declare License: GPLv3+ and
GPLv2+, but if everything is getting linked into a
Pavel Alexeev wrote:
We have forbidden bundle libs.
But what status if from one project copied some source files into
another and it is not lib to link it?
IMHO, that's not a library, ergo not a bundled library.
Sure, it would be nice to have that code made into an actual library, but I
18.01.2012 21:02, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Pavel Alexeev wrote:
We have forbidden bundle libs.
But what status if from one project copied some source files into
another and it is not lib to link it?
IMHO, that's not a library, ergo not a bundled library.
Sure, it would be nice to have that code
Hello.
We have forbidden bundle libs.
But what status if from one project copied some source files into
another and it is not lib to link it?
I work under packaging new version of qutim [1] which is under GPLv3+
and CC-BY-SA and author copied few files to work with rtf format from
fbreader
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Pavel Alexeev fo...@hubbitus.com.ru wrote:
Hello.
We have forbidden bundle libs.
But what status if from one project copied some source files into another
and it is not lib to link it?
I work under packaging new version of qutim [1] which is under GPLv3+ and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/17/2012 04:01 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
No, it really should use the system version. If it's not in
Fedora, submit it as a review for a new package.
-J
If I read correctly there is no system version since the code
discussed is not a
