[Bug 616193] Review Request: freerdp - X Remote Desktop Protocol Client

[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=616193

--- Comment #7 from Mads Kiilerich <mads at kiilerich.com> 2010-08-10 19:34:37 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> > Can you be more specific? Which library/binary, and where are the statements of
> > BSD license?
> 
> Sorry, it's actually MIT, to be precise
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Modern_Style_with_sublicense 
> * in asn1 everything is BSD
> * in channels/cliprdr everything is MIT
> * in channels/common everything it MIT except chan_stream.{c,h} (GPLv2+)
> * in channels/rdpdr everything is GPLv2+, except rdpdr_main.c (MIT)
> * in channels/rdpsnd we have rdpsnd.h/rdpsnd_dsp.h (MIT) and
> rspsnd_alsa.c/rdpsnd_main.c (GPLv2+)
> * in include/freerdp everything is MIT except kbd.h and rdpset.h (GPLv2+)
> * in libfreerdp everything is GPLv2+ except frdp.h (MIT)
> * libfreerdpchanman is MIT
> * in libfreerdpkbd everything is GPLv2+
> * in X11 everything is MIT
> 
> I think that xfreedrp is MIT, so if there is a separate package for xfreerdp,
> it should have MIT as license tag.
> The rest is a mess, but I think it will come down to GPLv2+. The plugins are
> compiling against the things from common, right?

Yes, so everything is either BSD or MIT or GPLv2+, but the xfreerdp and all
libs contains or links against GPLv2+ headers and libraries, so effectively
everything is GPLv2+, right?

-- 
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.