https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2298
--- Comment #5 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com> 2012-04-28 10:54:55 CEST
---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Package review:
>
> Thanks for the quick review, Jeremy!
No problem, if you have some time, you can return the favour :)
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=908
I'll try to.
> > -The license issue should be fixed, with a license
breakdown and all that.
>
> Both BSD and LGPLv2+ are compatible with GPLv2+. So it is perfectly fine for
> upstream to license the sources as GPLv2+.
>
> Please see, for example:
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility#GPL_compatibility
Sorry I didn't mean that there is a problem with the licenses, but merely that
all should be included in the spec like so:
>License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and MIT
and a license breakdown should be included in the comments above or below it.
If you need an example, take a look at this spec:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/pcsxr.spec
I think you are wrong. "The License: field refers to the licenses of the
contents of the binary rpm". Taken from:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License:_field
There is no doubt that the license of the of the binary RPM is GPLV2+.
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.