On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 17:07 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le Lun 12 novembre 2007 15:36, Tom \"spot\" Callaway a écrit : > > > > On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 23:38 +0000, Jonathan Underwood wrote: > > >> To continue the monologue, it seems itext upstream is now entirely > >> licensed as either LGPL 2 or MPL. As such, I can't see a reason it > >> can't be reinstated in Fedora. > > > > If someone points me at a new package for itext, I'd be happy to do a > > quick audit to confirm that it is OK for Fedora now. > > Here you go > > http://mirrors.dotsrc.org/jpackage/1.7/generic/free/repodata/repoview/itext-0-1.3-2jpp.html The "disparaging Sun" license is gone, but the "nuclear" clause is still there in some of the classes. To reiterate what I said before: This is a use-case restriction: "You acknowledge that Software is not designed,licensed or intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility." The word "licensed" is the problem here. Acknowledging that the software isn't designed or intended for any particular use case is fine, but when you say that the "software is not licensed for use...", then you're making a use case restriction. This is still no-go for Fedora, sorry. ~spot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
