On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 20:39 +0100, Jochen Schmitt wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:24:15 -0500, you wrote: > > >I'm trying to review Eterm: > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182173 > > > >and am uncertain whether the various licenses within the source code > >are, as a whole, acceptable. They appear to conflict and the upstream > >maintainer (and main author) has not been very helpful regarding license > > On debian I have found a license file at > > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/e/eterm/eterm_0.9.2-8/eterm.copyright > > and debian contains the package in the main repository. Hi Jochen, OK, it got through the debian packaging process which sounds like a good sign but is not sufficient for Fedora [I don't see any Fedora guidelines that say "if its in Debian's main repository then its perfectly OK for us, too!" :-)] What about the (apparently?) conflicting license terms within the various source files? Have you read them? At least one file states that it cannot be sold for profit and other files have GPL, LGPL, and BSD-ish licenses. As the submitter says, its messy. So my question is: is it messy but acceptable or should it be rejected? - Ed "not a lawyer and don't want to become one..." Hill -- Edward H. Hill III, PhD office: MIT Dept. of EAPS; Rm 54-1424; 77 Massachusetts Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 emails: eh3@xxxxxxx ed@xxxxxxx URLs: http://web.mit.edu/eh3/ http://eh3.com/ phone: 617-253-0098 fax: 617-253-4464 -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
