[Bug 198830] Review Request: libmodelfile - library for accessing WorldForge model files

[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 report.

Summary: Review Request: libmodelfile - library for accessing WorldForge model files
Alias: libmodelfile

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198830





------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl  2006-09-20 15:40 EST -------
By mail Wart wrote:
"Hi Ralf, Hans,

In the review for libmodelfile
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198830), you
mention that the package's license conflicts with the included GPL license.

The upstream author is willing to make the necessary changes, but has
asked for clarification via bugzilla because he (nor I) are able to see
exactly where the conflict arises.  Ralf, you mention that section 2 of
the source file licenses conflict with the GPL, but when I read section
2a of the GPL, I don't see this as a conflict.

Could either of you follow up in the BZ report and clarify where exactly
the conflict is, and what needs to be done to resolve it?  Even though
the package has already been FE_APPROVE'd, I'd rather not import it
until this has been sorted out.

Thanks!

--Wart"


I see your point, I guess they are compatible then Ralf, do you agree? Still it
would be better /clearer / 100% sure if the copyright header could be changed to:

/* Copyright (C) 2004 Alistair Riddoch <alriddoch at zepler.org>
 *
 * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or   
 * (at your option) any later version.
 *
 * Or (at your option) you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms below instead of the terms of the GNU GPL:
 *
 * Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
 * including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it
 * freely, subject to the following restrictions:
 *
 * 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not
 *    claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software
 *    in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be
 *    appreciated but is not required.
 * 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be
 *    misrepresented as being the original software.
 * 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.

Another alternative would be to remove the GPL text from the tarbal. The current
problem isn't as much the copyright header / the license in the copyright
header, as it is that the tarbal contains the GPL text in the COPYING file, but
makes no other reference to the GPL, making the status of the software a bit
unclear.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.