Bug 640158

Summary:	License: field in gettext-devel and gettext-libs should be "GPLv3+ and LGPLv2+"
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Richard Fontana <rfontana>
Component:	gettext	Assignee:	Jens Petersen <petersen>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	i18n-bugs, petersen, rtiller
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	gettext-0.18.1.1-5.fc14	Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2011-03-19 10:30:00 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	617282

Description Richard Fontana 2010-10-05 03:28:48 UTC

Currently, the License: field corresponding to the binary subpackages gettext-devel and gettext-libs has: "LGPLv2+".

gettext-devel contains /usr/include/autosprintf.h which has an LGPLv2+ notice, and /usr/include/gettext-po.h which has a GPLv3+ notice.

gettext-libs contains /usr/lib/libasprintf.so and /usr/lib/libgettextpo.so
It seems fairly clear from the source code for gettext that upstream intends for libasprintf to be LGPLv2+ and intends libgettextpo to be GPLv3+.

Therefore, the License: field for these subpackages should have "GPLv3+ and LGPLv2+".

Comment 1 Jens Petersen 2011-01-29 02:17:09 UTC

I am still wondering whether to do the easy thing (ie just tweaking
the license fields) or repackaging to reflect better the license differences.

Comment 2 Jens Petersen 2011-02-07 04:53:46 UTC

Thanks - I added GPLv3+ to gettext-libs in gettext-0.18.1.1-5.fc15.

Do you think a backport to F14 is necessary?

Comment 3 Richard Fontana 2011-02-07 14:28:08 UTC

A backport might be nice but doesn't seem necessary. If I remember correctly, this bug originated in a question from a RHEL customer concerning the corresponding RHEL package, and an explanation was given. The main point of the bug report was to correct the license label information going forward. I wonder whether in situations like this I should be filing bugs on the RHEL package (or cloning the bug for RHEL?)? Regardless I don't think it's very important given that a correction was made in Fedora and we can always point to that fact.

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2011-03-10 06:41:20 UTC

gettext-0.18.1.1-5.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gettext-0.18.1.1-5.fc14

Comment 5 Jens Petersen 2011-03-10 06:45:46 UTC

(In reply to comment #3)
> I wonder whether in situations like this I should be filing bugs on the RHEL package (or cloning the bug for RHEL?)? Regardless I don't think it's very important given
> that a correction was made in Fedora and we can always point to that fact.

Ok, I think in general filing against Fedora is fine,
unless prompt action is required for RHEL.

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2011-03-19 10:29:55 UTC

gettext-0.18.1.1-5.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.