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=450164 Chen Lei <supercyper@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |supercyper@xxxxxxx --- Comment #41 from Chen Lei <supercyper@xxxxxxx> 2010-02-17 03:11:23 EST --- (In reply to comment #33) > I'm afraid I'm a little burned out ... > I've been through this three times in as many years; each time the license > turns out to be a blocker. I'm worried that if I invest a bunch more time it > will prove to be a blocker again. > More importantly, getting ACE into Fedora without TAO actually makes life > *harder* for my clients. They use *both* ACE and TAO and need a solution for > both. Getting ACE into Fedora makes it much harder to generate the TAO > packages externally since the same build creates both. > I think I'd rather just distribute the ACE and TAO packages the way I already > do. If someone else wants to try and get a subset into the Fedora repo I'd be > happy to help in a lightweight manner. > I'm guessing my effort would be better spent with a repository that would > accept the TAO licenses as well; maybe Livna? This seems like a much better > use of my effort ... > Apologies for not expressing this sooner ... > Ken Push ace-tao to rpmfusion which provides software that the Fedora Project or Red Hat doesn't want to ship? See http://rpmfusion.org/FoundingPrinciples -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review