[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 #11 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at gmail.com>  2009-12-14 07:02:12 EDT ---
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. 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.

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. These
terms, however, can be read as requiring them to appear in supporting
documentation. Compare with the MIT#Old_Style pointed at above. That is more
than what the GPL requires. Those files could not be converted to GPL without
the permission of the original authors, as the requirement where to put
copyright notices and additional terms would be some sort of sublicensing,
which would be illegal with the GPL.

-- 
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.