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=492091 Toshio Kuratomi <tkuratom@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(a.badger@xxxxxxxx |needinfo? |m) | --- Comment #24 from Toshio Kuratomi <tkuratom@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-21 12:44:24 EDT --- (In reply to comment #23) > Any news concerning the license for lightboxXL.js? David, Eric, J5, did any of you hear anything back about this? IIRC -- the first option was lighthbox relicense and the analysis here was that would probably not happen. David, I know you sent off an email; did you hear back? The second option was that upstream would replace lightbox. Eric did you hear back on that? The third option was that we'd coordinate with upstream on what a valid replacement library would be and perform the port. J5, how is that going? > Should I fix the other problems first? >From a package review standpoint, yes. If no one(here or upstream) is working on the licensing issue, we aren't going to get this package in, though :-( -- 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