Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:

On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 10:10 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:



Of these, bmpx and kdemultimedia-libs claim to be v2-only. My reading
of the compatibility matrix is that you can't link to a LGPLv3 library
from GPLv2 code.


This is a correct assessment. Fortunately, bmpx had an incorrect license
tag (GPLv2) when it is actually GPLv2+. I've corrected that in rawhide.

kdemultimedia also had an incorrect license tag (GPLv2), when it is
actually GPLv2+ for the binaries, LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+ for its libraries.
Rex and I have corrected the license tags in rawhide.



Quick question: How do changes like this affect the licenses and
license tags of the dependent programs? Does this change the license of
the shipped binary? Does the license tag need to be changed to reflect
that? (Wondering as I can see GPLv2(only) code and GPLv3[+] code
extending through a chain of other packages to cause problems if this is
correct.


-Toshio

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 00:27 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
> No. I reviewed this package and actually some files in src/ are
> actually licensed
> under strict GPLv2, which renders the license of bmpx to be strict
> GPLv2.

You were right, I was wrong.

bmpx is going to be a concern for cdparanoia.

~spot

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

>>>>> "MT" == Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> writes:

MT> No. I reviewed this package and actually some files in src/ are
MT> actually licensed under strict GPLv2, which renders the license of
MT> bmpx to be strict GPLv2.

This is why it's important to document things like this in the
specfile.

- J<

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list