Hello,
From version 1.1.5 , ghc-hslogger will be under BSD license. Earlier it was
under LGPLv2 license. Is this change acceptable for Fedora?
--
Regards
Lakshmi Narasimhan T V
___
legal mailing list
legal@lists.fedoraproject.org
Hello Peter,
I am reviewing
erlang-skerlhttps://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652648and
the issue I am facing is similar to what Ville-Pekka reports. In this
case, some of the c source/header files and erlang source files are without
license headers.
Could you ask upstream to include
Thanks Tom.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.comwrote:
On 11/21/2010 10:21 AM, lakshminaras2...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no explicit disclaimer in the source package.
Please send the upstream copyright holder/author this message:
---
Hi,
I am working
Hello,
I am reviewing package request ghc-failure (
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630223 ). This is a haskell
package. Each haskell package has a cabal file (similar to a Makefile say)
that lists, among other things, the license of the sources.
In case of ghc-failure, the license is
There is no explicit disclaimer in the source package.
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III ti...@math.uh.eduwrote:
lc == lakshminaras2...@gmail com lakshminaras2...@gmail.com
writes:
lc Given that the license field in the cabal file is not textually
lc matching
