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=749055
--- Comment #3 from Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik(a)redhat.com> 2011-11-03 07:42:28 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #2)
I'm not sure I agree with any license that's not marked
GPLv2+ here. Sure,
there are some sources that are LGPLv2+, GPLv2+, but the aggregate license of
those combined sources for both the library and activitymanager pieces ends up
being GPLv2+
What I remember we agreed on not using aggregated licenses, didn't we? It's
just reminder, if we do not want to follow it, then it's ok for me to approve
this. one.
The ontologies are fun too, only used during the build process (via
onto2vocabularyclass too) to generate some sources/headers, but each of those
generated files are clearly marked LGPLv2+
Ok, makes sense.
--
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.