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=523877
--- Comment #2 from Tim Fenn <fenn(a)stanford.edu> 2009-09-24 19:07:33 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
The licensing situation is a bit complicated. Indeed, everything is GPLv2+,
but some of it is also LGPLv2+. That would give a license tag of "GPLv2+ and
(GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+)" but you also need to indicate which parts of the code are
under which license. The documentation says that you can distribute the cbflib
API under the LGPL, but honestly I'm not sure what they consider to be the API.
There's also some truly public domain code in there, though I doubt the
compiled result preserves any of it uncombined with GPL code.
I've notified upstream and received clarification (anything in the src/ folder
is LGPLv2+, everything else is GPLv2+), and asked later versions of the package
to differentiate this a bit better.
There's also a potentially troubling notice in some code:
I've also brought this up with upstream, hopefully they can provide information
as needed for the fedora legal folks if necessary.
--
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.