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=452321 --- Comment #16 from Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-05 18:54:33 EDT --- Hm. The license = "Python" bit definitely seems wrong, and it hasn't changed in 4.0, so I'll poke upstream about it. As for the MIT vs BSD part, I think you've opened a bit of a can of worms. The reason this package is labeled BSD is that it split off from PostgreSQL a long time ago, and it has the same license wording as PostgreSQL, which the upstream group for that project has always considered to be BSD-without-advertising. Not only because it came from Berkeley originally, but also because it once had an advertising clause, which UCB later allowed them (us) to remove. I am quite confused by the wiki's attribution of this wording to MIT, and frankly I'm not sure I believe it's authoritative. Particularly not when all their examples cite UCB not MIT. In short: if you want me to change this, you're going to have to persuade a large number of people that what they always thought was BSD wording is MIT wording. And a wiki page with these examples on it *ain't* going to do the trick. -- 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