[Bug 573917] Review Request: perl-NetPacket-SpanningTree - Assemble and disassemble IEEE 802.1D Spanning Tree protocol packets

[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=573917

--- Comment #7 from Jan Klepek <jan.klepek at gmail.com> 2011-03-22 03:01:11 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Thanks for the quick work! 
> 
> Actually, there's one last step we should take, and that's to include a copy of
> the GPL with the package. (Second dot point in comment #2)
> 
> From the email, it sounds like it's unlikely that upstream will generate a new
> tarball for us, so instead could you please contact them again and:
> 
> * attach a copy of the GPLv1 (not any other version) to the email
> * ask upstream if they're OK with you including a copy of that document in the
> Fedora package.
> 
> We've just had a similar situation arise with another perl module, and the
> advice above is based on what I got from Spot on legal list.[0]

I was watching that discussion, however my understanding is that if upstream
does not supply it, I will be liable if I will add license text and it will be
not that one under which upstream released that package. 

>From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines (and similar
text in reviewguidelines):
If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its
own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package
must be included in %doc. If the source package does not include the text of
the license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to
correct this mistake. 

Therefore I don't see any "must" requirement to include copy of GPL by myself
if upstream decide that they will not bundle it with tarball.

-- 
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.