[Bug 220890] Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220890





------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com  2007-02-20 10:32 EST -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> Thanks for the review!

No problem, sorry it sat so long w/o any attention.

> On buildroots we recently voted against that buildroot and currently I'm trying
> to get the mandatory insanity of the guidelines, so let's keep it open for now,
> I hope for the best ;)

Hm... Talked to some FESCo folks, they say that the buildroot specified in the
guidelines was accepted by FESCo via a vote at FUDCon as the standard for now,
but with work that needs doing at the rpm level to properly address concerns. So
for the moment, I'm told that it does have to be as specified... Who voted
against it?

> On the license: There is a COPYING file that explicitely states
> >                     GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
> >                        Version 2, June 1991
> 
> And the README says
> 
> > libcdaudio is distributed under the GNU Library General Public
> > License, included in this package under the top level source directory
> > in the file COPYING.

I saw that the actual license file says v2, but that's the case with almost
every GPL-licensed bits these days. My understanding from the FESCo folks I was
talking to is that unless the author says v2 is explicitly required, to just
keep the license field general, specifying just "GPL". Personally, I don't
really care either way, just trying to follow the letter of the law, so to
speak. (Though I like "GPLv2" better than "GPL2".)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.