[Bug 659082] Review Request: redland-bindings - language bindings for redland

[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=659082

--- Comment #6 from Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora at gmail.com> 2011-01-28 11:57:36 EST ---
Here is the discussion in the packaging list:
   http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2011-January/007593.html


(In reply to comment #3)
>  * licensing: I'm not sure what you want me to do.  Where do you want me to
> document them ? I can ask upstream what the situation is, but that will
> probably take time.  I don't think the package itself should block on it, what
> do you think ? For now I added MPLv1.0 as a license.
> 

Until upstream makes things clear, you will need to go into each source file
and find out its license, and indicate it as a comment in the specfile. as an
example:


# python/RDF.py is LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+ or ASL 2.0 or MIT
# python/example.py is LGPLv2 or GPLv2 or MPLv1.1
# perl/* are LGPL+ or GPL+ or MPLv?  (please check this, I did not see GPL or
LGPL or MPL versions in the headers)
# ... (list all other files with different licenses)
# the rest of the code is licensed with ...

%package -n perl-redland
License: LGPL+ or GPL+ or MPL

%package -n python-redland
License: (LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+ or ASL 2.0 or MIT) and (LGPLv2 or GPLv2 or MPLv1.1)
and ...

etc.

-- 
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.