Re: [Gchemutils-main] License confirmation

[Jean Bréfort]

Le jeudi 06 septembre 2007 à 22:59 +0200, Julian Sikorski a écrit :
> Hello,
> 
> the new guidelines for Fedora packages require specific descriptions of
> the software licenses. While GPL was enough in the past, now the
> specific version is required, as is the possibility of relicensing under
> later versions (the “or later” phrase). So far, I have adjusted the
> license tag to GPLv2+. Is that correct? I.e., can every file in the
> source be relicensed under a later GPL version? Thanks for the info in
> advance.

I think yes, I copy the license info from file to file, so it should be
the same everywhere, except in the canvas library, because I use code
from libgnomecanvas there. Some files here are LGPLv2+ and some are not
GPL at all (gcp-canvas-path.* and possibly others), they have just the
same license than their counterpart in gnome-canvas. Plans are to use
another canvas in the future.
Also we depend upon libgoffice wich is GPLv2 with no '+', see
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=463248

> Regards,
> Julian
> 
> P.S.
> I am looking into the rpmlint warnings issue right now. So far it seems
> to be a false positive, since running the validation tool against
> gchempaint returns (among others):
> W: gchempaint unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> /usr/lib64/libgcpcanvas-0.8.2.so /usr/lib64/libgcu.so.0
> And it seems unlikely to me that gchempaint is not using libgcu.

Not sure, gchempaint uses libgchempaint which uses libgcu, but there
might be no direct dependency. Anyway, this kind of issue is probably
general in the GNOME world, since everybody uses pfkconfig in the same
way.

Cheers,
Jean