https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131284
Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |needinfo?(kalevlember@gmail
| |.com)
--- Comment #11 from Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org> ---
(In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #9)
I believe we should be able to just state that:
License: LGPLv2
OK, that's indeed clear from the licensing FAQ.
It's less clear from the licensing guidelines at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Lic...
which is why I got confused. Guess it's better for me to learn this in my first
review than later on!
Where did you find BSD with advertising, by the way?
I didn't; I got three-clause confused with four-clause.
If the combined work is under a single license (LGPLv2), I don't
think we
need to do this.
Yup.
It seems to be already there for the -devel subpackage, or am I
missing
something?
Yes, it's clearly there. I did check the spec to make sure it was missing, but
I must have been very blind.
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #10)
Does libwebkit2gtkinjectedbundle.so need to be provided?
Good point. I was not sufficiently familiar with the rules for filtering
provides. It does need to be filtered; applications do not link to it directly.
So this and ANGLE are the only actual problems.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component