On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 15:22 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 23:16 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > > >From spot's list: > > > > > This license doesn't permit modified redistribution, so this is right > > > out. On top of that, Fedora _IS_ patching it, so we're in violation. > > > nothing requires aspell-nl explicitly, so moving this to FE makes sense. > > > > I'm wondering what would make this acceptable in FE. Other packages > > (eg. pine) having similar conditions have already been rejected. > > Yeah. I'll email the upstream author and see if I can convince them to > drop the restriction. ... or not. Upstream seems to have dropped off the face of the earth. I hate to just drop support for this, given that it was in core, so I looked at what Debian was doing here. They have an entirely DIFFERENT set of aspell-nl files, these are GPL. I took those files and tried to make a new aspell-nl package: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/aspell-nl-0.1e-1.src.rpm http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/aspell-nl.spec I think I did it right, but I am not an aspell expert, nor do I speak or read Dutch, so it should DEFINITELY be checked before being committed, but if this works, this will get us past this item. ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Technical Team Lead || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
