Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573917
--- Comment #9 from Ruediger Landmann <r.landmann(a)redhat.com> 2011-03-22 18:20:57
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Legally, it's questionable, because a Fedora packager added
license file isn't
legally binding to upstream (only upstream can do this).
Right -- which is why we need to seek upstream's consent to add the file (or,
better, ask them to do it themselves for us).
> From the email, it sounds like it's unlikely that upstream
will generate a new
> tarball for us, so instead could you please contact them again and:
>
> * attach a copy of the GPLv1 (not any other version) to the email
Are you sure? This GPLv1 is dead for more than a decade.
I was initially surprised by this too; but Spot's rationale makes sense to me:
"(yes, the GPLv1, not a later version, because the perl licensing
they granted is GPLv1 or later. If upstream adds a copy of GPLv2 or
GPLv3, that is sufficient for us to distribute to meet this
technicality, but if we're going to do it, we're going to do it
right.)"[0]
[0]
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-March/001584.html
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.