https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713767
--- Comment #18 from Björn Persson <bjorn(a)xn--rombobjrn-67a.se> ---
(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #15)
It's been on my to-do list for a long time to set up letsencrypt
on
http://libguestfs.org
but I haven't got around to it yet. However in this case the key is
available from
your favourite GPG keyserver:
It's nice that the key is on the keyservers but that's not an authoritative
source. A keyring on an HTTPS server under the control of the authors allows
anyone to determine with a high degree of confidence that that is the correct
key. Anyway, that's not a blocker.
(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #16)
The license does refer to the binary, not the source:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License:_field
and I believe LGPLv2+ is correct for the binary lib*.so.* file, even though
it uses a BSD-licensed header file as part of the build.
You may be right. I was thinking this was a "mixed source licensing scenario"
but it's not entirely clear to me which license combinations that applies to:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidel...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component