[Bug 474802] Review Request: vacation - Automatic mail answering program

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474802





--- Comment #14 from Nils Philippsen <nphilipp at redhat.com>  2009-08-03 09:33:57 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> $ licensecheck.pl  -r vacation-1.2.7.0/
> vacation-1.2.7.0/tzfile.h: BSD (3 clause) 
> vacation-1.2.7.0/rfc822.c: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
> vacation-1.2.7.0/html2man.pl: UNKNOWN
> vacation-1.2.7.0/strlcpy.c: ISC 
> vacation-1.2.7.0/vacation.c: BSD (3 clause) 
> vacation-1.2.7.0/vacation.h: BSD (3 clause) 
> vacation-1.2.7.0/strlcat.c: ISC 

Neato. Where do I find this?

> rfc822.c is under MIT license. Only the man page has any mention of a GPL
> (GPLv2+) license. Please ask upstream to clarify this.
> 
> **
> 
> The current GPLv2+ license marking is correct: if the source code or COPYING
> doesn't specify a version ("released under GPL"), then the license tag is GPL+.
> The same is used if the COPYING is some version of the GPL without a
> specification what license the program is under.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_version_of_the_GPL.2FLGPL_my_package_is_under.3F  

Only that the README doesn't say "under the GPL", but "under the GPL (see file
COPYING in the directory)" which could be interpreted as "under the GPL as
found in the file COPYING" (which would be specifying a version as this is
exactly version 2 and nothing else). IANAL and all that stuff, but IMO better
be safe than sorry.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.