On 23/10/2007, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > vonbrand@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > Is this an OSI-approved license? Does it make sense to grind it through > > that process? > > The recommended OSI process is for those who wrote the license to send > it for approval. We could ask FSF for a review however if that is not > already done by Spot. It seems that pdftk has been dropped. dead.package reads: "The package pdftk was going to EOL, becouse it contains a modified copy of iText. IText contains several licensing issue which caused, that this package was going into EOL:" This seems like an over-reaction. The contentious clause in the license reads: "You acknowledge that Software is not designed,licensed or intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility." This clause in no way restricts your freedom to use the software. You can still use it in your home-built nuclear reactor if you wish. By doing so, you're acknowldeging that the software wasn't designed to be used in this way, and all liability is with you. What are the other of the "several" issues with the license? Could the ex-package maintainer offer a bit more explanation? Cheers, Jonathan. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
