[Bug 476406] Review Request: sympow - Special Values of Symmetric Power Elliptic Curve L-Functions
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Mar 9 01:07:31 UTC 2009
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=476406
Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |182235(FE-Legal)
--- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> 2009-03-08 21:07:30 EDT ---
I don't believe the license of this package is actually BSD; at least, it's not
a BSD variant I've seen before. The third clause is different to me:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistribution of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistribution in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* If redistribution is done as a part of a compilation that has a more
restrictive license (such as the GPL), then the fact that SYMPOW has
a less restrictive license must be made clear to the recipient.
For example, a line like (include bracketed text if SYMPOW is modified):
"This compilation includes [a modification of] SYMPOW whose [original]
code has a less-restrictive license than the entire compilation."
should appear in a suitable place in the COPYING and/or LICENSE file.
Blocking FE-Legal for an opinion. I wonder if the third clause might actually
render the software GPL-incompatible. And even then, I'd have to leave it to a
lawyer to determine what "more restrictive" really means.
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list