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 #4 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-04 15:49:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #1) > > First of all would you clarify the following? > > > > ./data/dictionary/README.txt > > 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. Yes, the combination of BSD and mecab-ipadic is okay, I just want to make it clarified what license mozc's license is under. > > ./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? gyp taken. I guess rx can be shipped in current style (however the license tag of mozc needs fixing, after clarifying dictionary's license). -- 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