On 08/05/2009 07:15 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
So if you create a piece of software that can equally link to X or Y,
and you never use/distribute X yourself you are simply not within
reach of X's licensing terms. If someone else takes your software and
X then sticks them on a CD, then they are
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 00:15 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
I should probably talk to Spot about that.
So, the rule here is that we don't take outside linking into effect when
marking the package's licensing. We go by what the source in the tarball
tells us. Otherwise, it would become
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 11:33 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 00:15 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
I should probably talk to Spot about that.
So, the rule here is that we don't take outside linking into effect when
marking the package's licensing. We go by what the
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 15:03 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 08/05/2009 02:38 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
Apropos, what's the license in case a GPL package links against OpenSSL?
GPL with exceptions or what? Or is it even allowed?
So, in this specific case, I'm still arguing with Red Hat
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Chris Adamscmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com said:
On 08/05/2009 02:38 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
Apropos, what's the license in case a GPL package links against OpenSSL?
GPL with exceptions or what? Or is it even
On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 12:11 +0100, Tim Waugh wrote:
No, please look more closely. The above is a list of packages that
*use* or *require* ghostscript, not that link to it.
See my most recent contribution to this thread to see the correct list
based on requirements for libgs.so.8 and
On 08/04/2009 05:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 12:11 +0100, Tim Waugh wrote:
No, please look more closely. The above is a list of packages that
*use* or *require* ghostscript, not that link to it.
See my most recent contribution to this thread to see the correct list
On 07/31/2009 04:19 PM, Tim Waugh wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 22:47 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
This might cause problems for a bunch of packages.
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide --whatrequires --alldeps ghostscript ghostscript-
gtk --qf=%{NAME}: %{LICENSE} | grep -vP '\bGPL(v3|\S*\+)' | sort
On Friday 31 July 2009, Adam Williamson wrote:
ahhh, licensing! Spot will likely have better thoughts on all of this,
plus thoughts on the other license compatibility stuff. I don't think
MIT / BSD licensed stuff has any problem linking against GPL stuff
(unless it's under the _original_ BSD
On Friday 31 July 2009, Tim Waugh wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 22:47 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
This might cause problems for a bunch of packages.
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide --whatrequires --alldeps ghostscript
ghostscript- gtk --qf=%{NAME}: %{LICENSE} | grep -vP '\bGPL(v3|\S*\+)'
|
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 13:53 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide --whatrequires --alldeps ghostscript
ghostscript-
gtk --qf=%{NAME}: %{LICENSE} | grep -vP '\bGPL(v3|\S*\+)' | sort
[...]
baekmuk-ttf-fonts-ghostscript: Baekmuk
cjkuni-fonts-ghostscript: Arphic
On Friday 31 July 2009, Tim Waugh wrote:
Beginning with the 8.70 release, Ghostscript will be licensed as GPLv3+.
This might cause problems for a bunch of packages.
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide --whatrequires --alldeps ghostscript ghostscript-
gtk --qf=%{NAME}: %{LICENSE} | grep -vP
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 22:47 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
This might cause problems for a bunch of packages.
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide --whatrequires --alldeps ghostscript ghostscript-
gtk --qf=%{NAME}: %{LICENSE} | grep -vP '\bGPL(v3|\S*\+)' | sort
Wouldn't it be packages using the
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 22:47 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Friday 31 July 2009, Tim Waugh wrote:
Beginning with the 8.70 release, Ghostscript will be licensed as GPLv3+.
This might cause problems for a bunch of packages.
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide --whatrequires --alldeps ghostscript
Beginning with the 8.70 release, Ghostscript will be licensed as GPLv3+.
Tim.
*/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
15 matches
Mail list logo
