---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steven Garcia <webwhammy(a)gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Package Licensing
To: Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com>
Thank you, for your reply.
I apologize for misinterpreting the packaging guidelines for bundled
libraries. For some reason when I was reading the guidelines, I was thinking
in the context of compiled shared or static libraries as is so often the
case. I failed to remember that in this context the definition of the term
PHP and others.
There are two places where I should have been able to answer my own
Again, I'm sorry for missing this. Please consider adding to the packaging
guidelines a note similar to, "In this RPM packaging context, the definition
of the term 'library' includes: compiled third party source code resulting
in shared or static linkable files, interpreted third party source code such
the license field of your RPM Spec file contains two or more licenses, be
sure to read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries
ensure you're meeting the packaging guidelines."
I merely mention these suggestions in an effort to reciprocate the help you
have given me in better understanding the packaging process.
I now realize the serious library flaws in my packaging. I'm going to
attempt individual packaging of the third party libraries.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway
On 11/14/2010 11:30 PM, Steven Garcia wrote:
> The following lists a name, license and brief for each third-party
> source file group/library:
I feel that you really should consider packaging (or using any already
packaged) versions of these third party components, as opposed to
bundling copies within your package.
Not only would it resolve your licensing complexity, it would make it
much more likely that your package would be permitted into Fedora
without needing an exception, see: