On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 14:43 -0500, Andrew Overholt wrote: > 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? Mark it as BSD. 99% of the time, when a License has the name of the vendor in it (in the format $VENDOR Software License), its BSD. There are LOTS of things in Core that are just BSD, with mislabeled fields in their spec files (like say, Distributable). ~spot -- 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
