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=487098 --- Comment #12 from Dave Malcolm <dmalcolm@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-13 17:20:11 EDT --- Thanks. I got a response from fedora-legal on the partial license grant on this question: --- The project's website does state that the overall code license is MIT [1], my concern was that only a subset of the files within the tarball carry an explicit MIT grant in their headers, the others are devoid of copyright/license text. Based on that, it sounds like this is OK for inclusion, and that I was being overly paranoid. Is this correct? Dave [1] http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/wiki/Djblets states "Djblets is under the MIT license." --- ---- Response at: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-May/msg00025.html > Based on that, it sounds like this is OK for inclusion, and that I was > being overly paranoid. Is this correct? Yes, although, you should still ask upstream to fix the license attribution on the files which do not contain it. ---- I think this package is ready to approve, with these caveats: - Please add a comment above the License tag indicating the upstream license text, and the link to fedora-legal-list above. - Please change License to "MIT and (MIT or GPL)", with a further comment about the bundled version of jquery. -- 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