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=554187 --- Comment #17 from Thomas Spura <toms...@fedoraproject.org> 2010-12-01 18:24:54 EST --- (In reply to comment #16) > Depends; I haven't built the package to see if the MIT-license code appears by > itself in any binary files. I also didn't audit for GPLv3 vs. GPLv3+. That's > all something you need to do. I was just commenting on the fact that your > comments before the license tag refer to the source code, when what's > important > is the licenses on the files in the binary package. "Binary" is only GPLv3, the python source code, but because there is the C++ lib installed later to be used, when actually building the translated C++ programm, you use MIT code. So I'd use "GPLv3 and MIT" in this case, but if license should only apply to 'binary', it's GPLv3 (that would make me wonder...). -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
