[OT] Fun with walking package licenses

[Andy Green]

Mike McCarty wrote:

>> I believe that despite what the packages say, the actual libraries used
>> in libgcc and compat-libstdc++ are LGPL, so this does not show a problem
>> AFAIK.
> 
> According to LGPL, they must provide their own stuff in a form suitable
> for reverse engineering and modification for the customer's own use.
> AFAICT, the only real distinction between GPL and LGPL is that the

We did this last month:

http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2006-January/msg02996.html

-Andy

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4492 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20060221/e3138114/attachment-0001.bin>