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=757156
--- Comment #8 from Jan "Yenya" Kasprzak <kas(a)fi.muni.cz> 2011-12-07
15:34:19 EST ---
OK, here is the quoted discussion with the upstream package author. Lines
prefixed with ">" are mine, and lines prefixed with ":" are written
by the
package author:
: > : Personally, I don't really care which exact of the free-as-a-beer
: > : license is used, GPL, Artistic XYZ, or whatever you'd like it to be.
: >
: > OK. So "the same terms as Perl itself" would be OK with you?
: [...]
: > So if you say "the same terms as Perl itself" or "Artistic
2.0"
: > or "Artistic clarified" is OK with you, I would be able to package
: > Env::C for Fedora.
:
: Yes, either of the above works. I doubt I'll release a new version of
: the module just to tweak this, unless it's really important. Perhaps
: you can just quote this communication as a proof.
Is it sufficient to have it this way and keep License: Artistic 2.0
in the spec file?
--
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.