[Bug 474044] Review Request: libzdb - A small, fast, and easy to use database API

[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=474044





--- Comment #17 from Bernard Johnson <bjohnson at symetrix.com>  2009-02-25 17:50:24 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> If we did include it, though, we would offer the same dual-/multi-licensing
> options as the upstream tarball (and our "License: GPLv3+" tag may not be
> explicit enough to signal our intent). And with that, somebody could choose to
> accept the dual-licensing and would be bound to term 1.b.ii, which I think is a
> problem, as for example, we don't do that for Fedora.

Can I modify the EXCEPTIONS file to include this text at the top?:

============================================================================

NOTE:  This file is included for reference reasons only.  The Fedora project
only offers this software under the GPLv3+ and MIT licenses.

All files are GPLv3+ licenses, except the following files which are MIT
licensed:
src/exceptions/assert.c
src/exceptions/AssertException.h

If you wish to exercise the dual license, please obtain the sources from:
http://www.tildeslash.com/libzdb/

=============================================================================

Seems like that would make it un-mistakable in conjunction with the package
license tag.

If I am not allowed to modify that file, then a README.Fedora is probably the
best we can do.

-- 
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.