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 <jrez...@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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
