Hello there,
I bring this SystemC's legal discussion alive again as I believe it
would be a very big asset for FEL.
SystemC was refused to under fedora collection due to a licensing
issue. Tom Callaway went to talk with OSCI's lawyer with some
recommendations, but in vain. I'm in discussions
On 11/12/2009 05:57 AM, Gianluca Sforna wrote:
Hi,
I'm having a look at packaging ChemDoodle Web Components, a Javascript
set of classes to manage chemical structures in web pages.
Now, the license is GPLv3+ but they have an additional exception detailed in:
On 11/13/2009 06:06 PM, Steve Traylen wrote:
Hi,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530230
has been blocked on FE-Legal for sometime.
It looks fine bsd'ish but has a lot of extra text.
In fact as mentioned in the review this code is already in Fedora
as a private library
On 11/15/2009 11:04 PM, Ruediger Landmann wrote:
The new Fedora Wireless Guide includes photographs of different types of
wireless adapter:
http://sradvan.fedorapeople.org/Wireless_Guide/en-US/html-single/#sect-Wireless_Guide-Hardware-Types_Of_Cards
In each case, the manufacturer's logos
Hi,
during a package review I've stumbled over the following problem:
- a package ships the following in its tarball:
a LGPLv2 library
a GPLv2+ main application
- the main application statically links the library and only the
resulting binary is shipped in the final rpm
If I interpret
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 11/16/2009 06:03 PM, Christian Krause wrote:
I'm a little bit unsure about:
- Does the fact, that the library is statically linked, affects the
compatibility or does the same rules apply as for dynamic linking?
For the purposes of
On 11/17/2009 12:37 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Yes but you are missing one thing. The library is LGPLv2. It is not LGPLv2+.
Doesn't it make the resultant binary GPLv2, without the + ?
Well, the text of the LGPL says:
You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public
License
