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=669010 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Elwell <andrew.elw...@gmail.com> 2011-01-17 04:05:11 EST --- Updates from upstream author about licencing: >> I'm packaging up libfap into an RPM for Fedora, but I notice all the >> web pages mention 'copying' under GPL / artistic licence, but can you >> explicitly mention modification? > > Sure, my mistake. Now it is mentioned. > >> also can you say what version of the artistic licence is used >> (clarified or 2.0) (as v 1.0 isn't acceptable apparently) > > My intention is to follow the licensing of the original Perl code, which > uses v. 1.0. This is now also mentioned. > > Many thanks for pointing out those issues and especially packing libfap as > an RPM! Is it available somewhere on the Internets, so that I could link to > it?" and then again: > Hi again, > > On 12.01.2011 10:43:18, Andrew Elwell wrote: >> also can you say what version of the artistic licence is used >> (clarified or 2.0) (as v 1.0 isn't acceptable apparently) > > I forgot to mention that if the dual licensing model is an issue, drop the > Artistic License. You can also use more recent version of the GPL if you > want. The licensing terms allow both actions. > > If libfap needs to be modified in order to make an RPM of it, it is totally > ok with me to release the modifications only under GPLv3 for example. But if > you make other changes, it would be nice to have them available under the > original licensing terms, so that they can be migrated back if wanted. But > that is of course for you to decide. -- 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
