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=619395 --- Comment #3 from Akira TAGOH <tagoh@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-04 11:16:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > First of all would you clarify the following? > > ./data/dictionary/README.txt > - Well, mozc says the overall license is BSD, however > - this file (./data/dictionary/README.txt) says that > the volaburaly set is taken from ipadic, and > the license of ipadic is not the same as BSD. > ! Fedora admits that the license of ipadic is free, > however is different from BSD at least in that the > compatibility with GPL is currently unclear: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing > > - Also some other words seems added to the dictionary in the > tarball. Maybe newly added words are licensed under BSD, > however it seems unclear to me. > > Would you check under what license the dictionaries in mozc are > actually licensed? Sure. will check it with upstream though, I don't see any issues combining ipadic's license with BSD. > ./third_party/rx/v1_0rc2/README > - This is under ASL 2.0. > ! By the way, there are two third-party products included in mozc > tarball (gyp, rx). Generally using bundled libraries is discouraged > on Fedora and it is recommended to seperate such bundled libraries > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Bundling_of_multiple_projects > Would you create seperated review request for these (if these > are really needed)? I've submitted a package review for gyp though, there are no upstream for rx anymore. apparently it may be not supposed to be shipped live for library and a trivial code though, can't we just have a comment about the license for rx in the spec file? -- 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