[Bug 478372] Review request: Mathgl - Scientific plotting library.

[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=478372


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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|505154(FE-SCITECH)          |
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




--- Comment #39 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi>  2009-09-12 05:08:08 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #37)
> >- Add COPYING, COPYRIGHT, NEWS, TODO.
> COPYRIGHT NEWS and TODO have been included. COPYING is not included as this is
> a GPLv3 licence, and conflicts with the source headers.

The source code headers say GPLv2+ so GPLv3 is valid in that category, so you
can safely include it. Add it to %files.

> >- License is GPLv2+ not GPLv3.
> I emailed upstream again, asking for clarification (fix headers or remove GPL3
> licence). I still believe that GPL3 was the better option, given the presence
> of the COPYING file (gplv3 is compatible with gpl2, but not vice versa).
> Regardless, this has been to changed GPLv2+, as requested.
> 
> I am aware of the wiki page that describes how to select the GPL version,
> however it doesn't cover this type of internal inconsistency.

The source code headers ALWAYS take precedence. You only look at the LICENSE
file if there is no mention of the used license in the source code.

**

Always post the new spec & srpm so the reviewer can check them.

**

This time I'll trust your diff. The package has been

APPROVED.

Add LICENSE to the package before CVS import.

-- 
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.