[Bug 521719] Review Request: pycryptopp - Python wrappers for the Crypto++ library

[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=521719





--- Comment #10 from Thomas Spura <tomspur at fedoraproject.org>  2009-11-11 14:27:35 EDT ---
You wrote now in the spec file:

 10 # we don't use the embedded cryptopp library
 11 # but link against the one in Fedora
 12 # 
 13 # all the files we distribute in the binary rpm
 14 # are GPLv2+ or TGPPL
 15 #
 16 # see copyright for details

So doesn't the license tag need to be 'GPLV2+ or TGPPL'? It should, but I can't
find TGPPL in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing...

And from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Valid_License_Short_Names:
'''
The License: field must be filled with the appropriate license Short License
identifier(s) from the "Good License" tables on the  Fedora Licensing page. If
your license does not appear in the tables, it needs to be sent to
fedora-legal-list at redhat.com (note that this list is moderated, only members
may directly post). If the license is approved, it will be added to the
appropriate table.
'''

I think you should ask there, what to do, but this license looks GPL-compatible
at the first sight.


So this license 'issue' is now, to just use 'GPLv2+' or 'GPLv2+ or TGPPLv1+'.

____________

Anything else is fine now.

-- 
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.