[Bug 515049] Review Request: dvisvgm - Converts DVI files to SVG

[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=515049


Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |jussi.lehtola at iki.fi
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |jussi.lehtola at iki.fi
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #9 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi>  2009-08-03 06:24:27 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Spec URL: http://dvisvgm.sourceforge.net/fedora/dvisvgm.spec
> SRPM URL: http://dvisvgm.sourceforge.net/fedora/dvisvgm-0.8.1-1.fc11.src.rpm
> 
> Thanks for all your comments and support. 
> 
> I've updated the spec file and added the GPL v2 LICENSE file to the tarball.
> However, I'm not quite sure about the license constraints because the sources
> contain some unmodified, third-party files that are licensed under GPL v2+.
> Even if I'd like to publish my own code under GPL v3, do the bundled files
> affect the license of the complete package, e.g. force it to be GPL v2+ too
> (which wouldn't be a problem for me)? For now, I stay with GPL v2+.

You can license your own files as GPLv3+. Then the binary will be formed out of
GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ parts, so the License: tag would be either "GPLv2+ and
GPLv3+" or just "GPLv3+" since that's the license of the binary that's
produced.

> I didn't change the headers of the third-party files, so some of them still
> don't mention their GPL version.  

If they don't mention a version, they're GPL+.

**

Drop
 gzip -9 ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_mandir}/*/*
as RPM will do this for you automatically.

**


I am willing to sponsor you if you show me your knowing of the Fedora 
guidelines, most importantly
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets

This you can do by making at least one other submission and performing a couple
of informal reviews of packages of other people. Please review only packages
*not* marked with FE-NEEDSPONSOR, as I will have to do the full formal review
after you to check that you have got everything correctly. Once I have
sponsored you you will be able to do formal reviews of your own.

-- 
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.