https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678887 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678887#c1 Marcus Meissner changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cfarrell@novell.com, | |jw@novell.com AssignedTo|bnc-team-screening@forge.pr |vuntz@novell.com |ovo.novell.com | --- Comment #1 from Marcus Meissner 2011-03-14 08:58:16 UTC --- binary subpackage built by the poppler source rpm, the libpoppler7 package has it at least. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678887 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678887#c3 Ciaran Farrell changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |NEW InfoProvider|jw@novell.com | --- Comment #3 from Ciaran Farrell 2011-03-14 10:23:46 UTC --- It is better to put the COPYING file in all user visible subpackages. There is an open issue about e.g. libraries that we split off from main source packages into smaller binaries for convenience. The bug reporter here expressed the opinion that it is his interpretation of the GPLv2 (I don't think there was a bug concerning GPLv3 yet, but the issue is much the same nonetheless) that a COPYING file should be distributed in all cases with the binary library package (or subpackages in general). My opinion in that bug was that this is not at all clear from the text of the GPLv2 license. To clarify, I contacted the FSF compliance engineers. The compliance engineer who answered my question was of the opinion that so long as the COPYING file is present in the main "parent" package, it doesn't necessarily need to be present in the binary, which was specially packaged for efficiency. I will ask the compliance engineer if it is ok with him for me to enter the text of his response here. To make it clear, the rationale of the clause in the GPL that requires this is that downstream users should be able to know their rights with respect to a package. In the immediate case, the COPYING file should be added - if the package is not a library and has 'user-visible' executables, then the license should be added. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678887 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678887#c5 Vincent Untz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED --- Comment #5 from Vincent Untz 2011-05-02 15:38:31 UTC --- Fix submitted in sr#69259 for Factory. I don't think we need a maintenance update for 11.3/11.4. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.