Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480887 --- Comment #6 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-07 20:17:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > First of all: > > Would you explain why the license term in > licenseMusicXML.html are related to this application? > > I fear that the clause > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > This > Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of California and the > intellectual property laws of the United States of America. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > renders this license non-free. I am not sure if we should include this license file in the package. As far as I understood this license applies to certain MusicXML document files. No such files are distributed by upstream tarball. The only relation between this license and kguitar is: kguitar is capable of handling MusicXML files. In Fedora, we have also other applications that can handle these MusicXML files. Tuxguitar and hydrogen are two examples that I can think of (they both do not distribute MusicXML document files.). Should I take this file off the package? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review