Sorry, I forgot to include the links. Full text below. Merge review for adaptx [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225238 adaptx license.txt [2] http://svn.codehaus.org/castor/adaptx/trunk/src/doc/license.txt * Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> [2007-02-09 14:42]: > Hi, > > I'm currently trying to do to the merge review for adaptx [1] but the > license field is troubling: > > Exolab Software License > > A google query gives this page (in the cache): > > http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:kh3l7BHsrJsJ:freshmeat.net/releases/3417/+exolab+osi&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&lr=lang_en|lang_fr&client=firefox-a > > Which seems to imply that the license [2] is BSD. It does indeed look > quite BSD-ish to me but what should the license field have? Is this > okay from a legal standpoint? Spot? > > Thanks, > > Andrew
Attachment:
pgpV35b5DrKVR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
