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=499049 --- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-05-05 11:30:42 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > * Would be fine to name it "ExpatImpl" with no main package but a -devel > subpackage. There are no guidelines that require the name to be converted to > lower-case. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Case_Sensitivity although in this case the name of the tarball is ExpatImpl and thus ExpatImpl is OK to use as the package name. To the first point: doesn't this package include a library of some sort? > * Licensing situation is unclear. Upstream .zip doesn't contain or mention the > BSD licence that is specified in the .spec file. There's just a copyright > notice in the single C++ header file. In the upstream msg boards the authors > writes: > > | By definition, all code posted to CodeProject is free to use. > | These days I use the BSD non-adware license. > | So feel free to use the code as you wish. > | > | [...] > | > | Tim Smith > > "Free to use" doesn't imply "BSD". > > Though, if you choose the BSD licence for the Fedora package, an added > explanation would be good. "Free to use" doesn't imply distributability either. Unless upstream puts a clear license in the tarball (or state that the code is public domain), there's no way this package will be included in Fedora. A message board message is not enough. -- 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