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+".
I am still wondering whether to do the easy thing (ie just tweaking
the license fields) or repackaging to reflect better the license differences.
Thanks - I added GPLv3+ to gettext-libs in gettext-0.18.1.1-5.fc15.
Do you think a backport to F14 is necessary?
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.
gettext-0.18.1.1-5.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14.
(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.
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.