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=537979
--- Comment #10 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2010-01-21 04:29:24 EST --- (In reply to comment #8)
(Correctly he hasn't updated the original header file yet IIUC, but anyway.)
So in that sense we could actually ignore GPL.
(In reply to comment #9)
I think that makes it GPL AND BSD (whereas dual-licensed would be GPL OR BSD).
You're right about dual-licenseing being "OR", but AFAIK "AND" means part of the binary package is one license and another part another (cf cpphs). In this case it is a single library linked together and hence GPL trumphs BSD.
However going on the above comment from the author I think we could just forget about the "GPL code" - I could add a comment to that effect in the spec file.
haskell-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org