Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eterm - a color vt102 terminal emulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182173 ------- Additional Comments From terjeros@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-03-06 10:51 EST ------- > - BuildRoot should be: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Fixed. > E: eterm explicit-lib-dependency libast Fixed. > E: eterm binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath > /usr/bin/Esetroot ['/usr/lib', '/usr/lib/Eterm'] > E: eterm binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath > /usr/bin/Eterm ['/usr/lib', '/usr/lib/Eterm'] Is this a showstopper? Don't know how to fix this, any ideas? > Please contact upstream and inquire about the overall license. The vast > majority of the code is BSD-style (per Michael Jennings) but the license on > the command.c file explicitly forbids "making money" and AFAICT this is not > acceptable for FC or FE (that is, folks should be allowed to sell copies of > Fedora-packaged software if they desire). Ok, I sent John a email, here is his respons: The code must originate from xvt, a lightweight replacement for xterm that I wrote many years ago. It was used by Rob Nation as the basis for rxvt and it looks like it has found its way into other terminal emulators. The comment about 'not making any money' was the original license but xvt has also been released in debian with a gpl license. I am happy for any terminal emulator code of mine to be on a gpl license. Updated package available here: Spec: http://web.phys.ntnu.no/~terjeros/eterm/eterm.spec SRPM: http://web.phys.ntnu.no/~terjeros/eterm/eterm-0.9.3-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
