[Bug 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration

[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=484386


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|needinfo?                   |




--- Comment #11 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-07-13 14:05:33 EDT ---
Please note that there isn't any question of whether the license is acceptable.
 The question is whether it's restricted to "GPLv2 only" or whether it's "GPLv2
or later".  This is important because it is not uncommon these days for
packages to relicense to GPLv3+ (for example, this just happened with
libreadline) and we need to know at a glance whether this is an issue for a
particular program.

We get the "Debian didn't care" argument pretty often, but the simple fact is
that Fedora cares more about this kind of thing.  We're just paying attention
to details here.  Since there's doubt, it seems safer to assume that the bulk
of the software is "GPLv2 only" and cannot be linked against GPLv3 code, but if
that's not what you intend then please do feel free to clarify.  The GPL itself
tells you how to be completely clear about this, by putting proper license
blocks in each source file and using well-defined terminology when referring to
the license.  This information is down near the end of the GPL text, at "How to
Apply These Terms to Your New Programs".

-- 
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.