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: ht2html - The www.python.org Web site generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193889 ------- Additional Comments From ifoox@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-26 13:41 EST ------- New files: http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/ht2html-2.0-1.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/ht2html.spec (In reply to comment #4) > Non-Numeric Version in Release I fixed this, changing the release to simply 1. > > > There seems to be no mention of licensing in the software itself, but I found > > mention of in the sourceforge net. However, rpmlint tells me that both 'Python > > License' and 'Python License (CNRI Python License)' are invalid. Is there a > cannonical way to call this license? > > rpmlint can be a bit confusing; in this case, the valid licenses accepted are > overridden by a Fedora-specific file /usr/share/rpmlint/config. The string to > use is "Python Software Foundation License". However, honestly with absolutely > no license mentioned in the source, you really do need to contact upstream and > get some sort of statement. When you get that, include the correspondence in > the package. (In a perfect world they'd make a new release which includes a > license statement, but this package is pretty old so I doubt that would happen.) On friday the mailing list archives on sourceforge were unavailable. Today I found a message [1] to the ML from the main author of ht2html, stating that it is licensed under the PSF license. So I chaned the license to Python Software Foundation License". [1] - http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=1785154&forum_id=8327 -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review