[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: License change for ghostscript



On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 12:11 +0100, Tim Waugh wrote:

> No, please look more closely.  The above is a list of packages that
> *use* or *require* ghostscript, not that link to it.

> See my most recent contribution to this thread to see the correct list
> based on requirements for libgs.so.8 and libijs-0.35.so.

Yes, I saw that after I'd sent my reply. I had assumed the original list
was correct, and worked on that basis.

> > An interesting side-question here is what license tag we should use for
> > an app whose license text states GPLv2+, but which we are linking
> > against a GPLv3+ library, effectively meaning that its license for our
> > purposes is GPLv3+...
> 
> Yes, indeed.

I should probably talk to Spot about that.

-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]