Re: [Gchemutils-main] License confirmation

[Julian Sikorski]

Jean Bréfort pisze:
> 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
> 
> 
OK, thanks. I'll look into the source and clarify the license. As for
the rpmlint warnings, I think that a good idea is to wait until somebody
files a bug report @ redhat bugzilla, since he might know how to solve that.

Regards,
Julian