https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815624
--- Comment #15 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #14)
(In reply to comment #12)
(In reply to comment #11)
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
The "COPYING" file contains multiple licenses, are you sure a simple "MIT" license is enough?
The licenses are MIT or BSD-style without clauses. I also added GPLv2+ because of the int64 patch actually adapts code from libgcc.
Why the GPLv2+ here? This is in the patch: +/* based on code based on libgcc (that is GPLv3)
- version here doesn't return the result or MINSLONG if overflow
- */
wouldn't that make it to GPLv3??
Please elaborate a bit more on that.
I did that as a quick patch to one feature that is only available when evaluating lisp expressions in the "*scratch*" buffer. But that is very unlikely someone would ever use :-) The license update in the spec only refers to the patch, but I can rework it to use some different approach or update the spec to say GPLv3 (I do not recall if I adapted it from libgcc sources before or after switch to GPLv3)
realpath.c is BSD-4clause == BSD with advertising, which is GPL INCOMPAT! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
It was added to xedit source back in 1990's, but can be removed before starting the build, or replaced by a newer version, that should be GPL compatible. I did not add it back then, and it was added to build XFree86 on systems without a working realpath, strcasecmp, etc.
I believe the 3 clause one, first google result, would do it http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/lib/libc/stdlib/realpath.c?rev=1.1...
(In reply to comment #13)
Please correct the license, "BSD-like" is not a valide License tag
Which would be the right one, Simone?
I am used to write BSD-like as license tag for Mandriva packages, but I did overlook the COPYING file with a proper license audit, and it does indeed list BSD 4 clause.
Also missing: "Which file is under which license" comment in the spec file: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
Don't import this package till the licensing is completely clear!
Ok. I do not have plans to do any work on xedit (other than packaging), and almost nothing was done in 2002-2012, but I still use it, unfortunately :-) But if everything were ok now I would not import/submit until the Xaw issue in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824198 is addressed.