[Bug 669010] Review Request: libfap - C port of Ham::APRS::FAP APRS Parser

[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=669010

--- Comment #2 from Andrew Elwell <andrew.elwell at gmail.com> 2011-01-17 04:05:11 EST ---
Updates from upstream author about licencing:

>> I'm packaging up libfap into an RPM for Fedora, but I notice all the
>> web pages mention 'copying' under GPL / artistic licence, but can you
>> explicitly mention modification?
> 
> Sure, my mistake. Now it is mentioned.
>
>> also can you say what version of the artistic licence is used
>> (clarified or 2.0) (as v 1.0 isn't acceptable apparently)
>
> My intention is to follow the licensing of the original Perl code, which
> uses v. 1.0. This is now also mentioned.
>
> Many thanks for pointing out those issues and especially packing libfap as
> an RPM! Is it available somewhere on the Internets, so that I could link to
> it?"

and then again:
> Hi again,
>
> On 12.01.2011 10:43:18, Andrew Elwell wrote:
>> also can you say what version of the artistic licence is used
>> (clarified or 2.0) (as v 1.0 isn't acceptable apparently)
>
> I forgot to mention that if the dual licensing model is an issue, drop the
> Artistic License. You can also use more recent version of the GPL if you
> want. The licensing terms allow both actions.
>
> If libfap needs to be modified in order to make an RPM of it, it is totally
> ok with me to release the modifications only under GPLv3 for example. But if
> you make other changes, it would be nice to have them available under the
> original licensing terms, so that they can be migrated back if wanted. But
> that is of course for you to decide.

-- 
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.