Alan Cox wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:31:06PM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>>Two packages that I recently submitted for review ('rogue' and 'ularn')
>
>
> I was always under the impression rogue (and rogue clone) didn't meet the
> Fedora licensing requirements as it was non-commercial only
That's true for Angband, but rogue 5.4.2 is very BSD-ish:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/roguelike/rogue5.4/LICENSE.TXT?view=markup
--Mike
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
