[Bug 486804] Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of Loki library from Modern C++ Design for libferris

[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=486804





--- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp>  2009-12-14 08:11:19 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Once again, haven't had another look at the pkg since previously mentioned
> issues are still present and Mamoru has added a review.
> 
> Just about the licensing:
> 
> > * Licensing
> >   - The license tag should simply be "GPLv2+".
> >     src/Extensions.cpp is under GPLv2+, libferrisloki.so uses
> >     .libs/Extensions.o, which renders libferrisloki.so to be under GPLv2+,
> >     so other license tag is useless.
> 
> * Relicensing of source files to GPLv2+ is neither automatic nor implicit. It
> would be best to make the GPLv2+ licensing explicit in all source files where
> license conversion is possible. 

- We always can it and there is no problem.

> Even the copied LGPLv2+ m4 macros could be
> converted to GPLv2+ by following the instructions in the LGPL appendix.
> However:
> 
> * The BoostExtensions.hh file, which applies its own license, is included in
> the built rpms. Hence:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
> 
> * About the several C++ source files with very short licensing terms or just
> copyright messages (e.g. LockingPtr.h), please don't take these issues lightly. 
> See what is included in the built rpms. Some of the files (albeit from Loki
> lib) explicitly refer to "MIT" licensing. Several other files, used in
> ferrisloki (e.g. SmallObj.cpp) apply terms that look like
> 
>   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Old_Style
> 
> instead, i.e. more than a "Copyright Only" header even if it doesn't mention
> "MIT" anywhere.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios

Quoted:
If your package contains files which are under multiple, distinct, and
*independent* licenses, then the spec must reflect this by using "and" as a
separator.

The relation between MIT and GPL is not independent.

> Simply ignoring such licensing issues in the Fedora package "License:" tag
> would be wrong. In particular, what I don't feel good about is this:
> 
> | provided that [...] both that copyright notice and this 
> | permission notice appear in supporting documentation.
> 
> The 2nd example on the linked "Copyright Only" Fedora Licensing page wants
> copyright notices "to remain" in documentation. Vague enough already.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Old_Style_with_legal_disclaimer
Quoted:

and that both that
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting
documentation,

-- 
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.