On Thursday 28 December 2006 11:27, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 07:28:48AM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 07:38:50PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 10:23:19AM +0200, Gianluca Sforna wrote: > > > > On 7/12/06, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > >On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 11:24:19PM +0200, Gianluca Sforna wrote: > > > > >Well, I've already put quite some time into vtk packaging with the > > > > >intend to push it to extras when it's done and I also need it for my > > > > >(current) day job, so I'm interested in continuing maintenance. > > > > FWIW the packages have been submitted for some time now and have been > > semi-reviewed. Anyone who wants to finish it off: > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199405 > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199406 > > I'm trying to get this forward, there are two issues, one involved > patents and is handled separately and the other involves the > license. The VTK license is neither submitted to OSI or FSF for > approving them in one way or another. > > There was a recent discussion here whether the wording about "fedora > *clarifies* an open source license with these three groups" means a > strict limit to these three or a hint about what fedora regards as > open source licenses. I can't say anything about the wording, the > important part is the intention and the decision that was made back > then. > > Anyway here is the license by VTK. Would it be open source for fedora? > Who would decide on this, fesco? FSF is the place to have it decided upon -- ,-._|\ Dennis Gilmore, RHCE /Aussie\ Proud Australian \_.--._/ | Aurora | Fedora | v -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
